Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Expansions in telehealth services and increased use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) were associated with significant decreases in fatal drug overdoses during the pandemic, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries shows.

Telehealth services for opioid use disorder (OUD) were used far more often during the pandemic than before COVID-19, and those who used them were 33% less likely to die of a drug overdose.

Investigators also found a significant increase in MOUD use during the pandemic. Fatal drug overdoses were 59% less likely among individuals who received MOUD from an opioid treatment program and 38% less likely among those treated with buprenorphine in an office-based setting.

The results come as policymakers are preparing for the end of the public health emergency that prompted the expansion of OUD-related telehealth and MOUD prescribing and are deciding whether to make those expansions permanent.

“The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have had positive effects on patients receiving MOUD, improved retention among patients who received MOUD, and lowered risks for both nonfatal and fatal overdose,” lead investigator Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, told this news organization. “Our results suggest that telehealth is a valuable tool in the toolbox for expanding access to and improving retention on MOUD.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Increase in treatment

The study included 105,162 Medicare beneficiaries who began OUD treatment between March and August in 2019 (prepandemic cohort; 67.6%

aged 45-74 years), and 70,479 who began treatment between March and August of 2020 (pandemic cohort; 66.3% aged 45-74 years).

Participants had not received OUD treatment in the 6 months leading up to study enrollment and were followed for 6 months after treatment began.

Significantly more study participants received OUD-related telehealth services during the pandemic than prior to 2019 (19.6% vs. 0.6%; P < .001). Receipt of MOUD was also significantly higher in the pandemic cohort (12.6% vs. 10.8%; P < .001).

The rate of drug overdose deaths was higher in the pandemic cohort (5.1 deaths vs. 3.7 deaths per 1,000 beneficiaries; P < .001). But the percentage of deaths from drug overdoses did not differ between groups (4.8% in the prepandemic cohort vs. 5.1% in the pandemic cohort; P = .49).

In the pandemic cohort, fatal drug overdoses were 33% less likely among those who received OUD-related telehealth services (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.92); 59% less likely among those who received MOUD from opioid treatment programs (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.68), and 38% less likely among those who received buprenorphine in office-based settings (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.91).

Risk of fatal overdose was significantly lower among women and those aged 65 years and older. There were no significant differences in risk based on urban or rural residency or on ethnicity.

“Against the backdrop of a highly potent illicit drug supply driven by illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues and historically large increases in overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, MOUD was still highly effective at reducing risk for fatal overdose,” Dr. Jones said.

While the use of buprenorphine in office-based settings was associated with a decreased risk of overdose death, use of extended-release naltrexone was not.

“Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in the treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Jones said. “However, research has also shown that patients have challenges getting started, or inducted, on extended-release naltrexone.”

An earlier study by Dr. Jones and colleagues showed that rates of retention were lower with extended-release naltrexone, compared with buprenorphine in office-based settings or MOUD from opioid treatment programs.

The new study included only a small number of individuals who were receiving extended-release naltrexone, which may have influenced the findings. In addition, challenges with induction and retention may be driving the results, Dr. Jones noted.

“Efforts to improve induction and retention with extended-release naltrexone are important areas for future research and clinical practice,” he added.
 

An important engagement tool

A number of questions about telehealth care for OUD remain, including whether increased access to care accounts for the reduction in drug overdose risk that the investigators found or whether other factors are at play.

“There is still more we need to understand about telehealth, such as the quality of care provided and the particular aspects of care provided by telehealth and how this influences health outcomes,” Dr. Jones said.

The results also suggest treatments for OUD are still not finding their way to patients who might benefit, he added.

“Despite the positive findings and the prior research showing that MOUD is highly effective, we found that only one in five patients received telehealth services and only one in eight received any MOUD. This really underscores the need to expand these services across clinical settings,” he added.

These and earlier findings demonstrate the potential benefits of continuing pandemic-era expansion of OUD-related telehealth services and MOUD access, Dr. Jones said.

In preparation for the end of the public health emergency on May 1, the Drug Enforcement Agency recently released a proposal that would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of buprenorphine, but for patients to receive additional prescriptions, a face-to-face meeting would be required. The proposal has drawn criticism from addiction medicine specialists.

The current study didn’t explore if or how the proposal might affect patients with OUD or whether it could blunt the positive effects of the findings.

“Prior research shows that keeping individuals engaged in treatment, including on medications, is a critical part of reducing the negative health and social impacts of opioid use disorder. Our results suggest that telehealth can be an important tool in helping patients engage in and stay connected in care,” said Dr. Jones.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Expansions in telehealth services and increased use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) were associated with significant decreases in fatal drug overdoses during the pandemic, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries shows.

Telehealth services for opioid use disorder (OUD) were used far more often during the pandemic than before COVID-19, and those who used them were 33% less likely to die of a drug overdose.

Investigators also found a significant increase in MOUD use during the pandemic. Fatal drug overdoses were 59% less likely among individuals who received MOUD from an opioid treatment program and 38% less likely among those treated with buprenorphine in an office-based setting.

The results come as policymakers are preparing for the end of the public health emergency that prompted the expansion of OUD-related telehealth and MOUD prescribing and are deciding whether to make those expansions permanent.

“The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have had positive effects on patients receiving MOUD, improved retention among patients who received MOUD, and lowered risks for both nonfatal and fatal overdose,” lead investigator Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, told this news organization. “Our results suggest that telehealth is a valuable tool in the toolbox for expanding access to and improving retention on MOUD.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Increase in treatment

The study included 105,162 Medicare beneficiaries who began OUD treatment between March and August in 2019 (prepandemic cohort; 67.6%

aged 45-74 years), and 70,479 who began treatment between March and August of 2020 (pandemic cohort; 66.3% aged 45-74 years).

Participants had not received OUD treatment in the 6 months leading up to study enrollment and were followed for 6 months after treatment began.

Significantly more study participants received OUD-related telehealth services during the pandemic than prior to 2019 (19.6% vs. 0.6%; P < .001). Receipt of MOUD was also significantly higher in the pandemic cohort (12.6% vs. 10.8%; P < .001).

The rate of drug overdose deaths was higher in the pandemic cohort (5.1 deaths vs. 3.7 deaths per 1,000 beneficiaries; P < .001). But the percentage of deaths from drug overdoses did not differ between groups (4.8% in the prepandemic cohort vs. 5.1% in the pandemic cohort; P = .49).

In the pandemic cohort, fatal drug overdoses were 33% less likely among those who received OUD-related telehealth services (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.92); 59% less likely among those who received MOUD from opioid treatment programs (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.68), and 38% less likely among those who received buprenorphine in office-based settings (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.91).

Risk of fatal overdose was significantly lower among women and those aged 65 years and older. There were no significant differences in risk based on urban or rural residency or on ethnicity.

“Against the backdrop of a highly potent illicit drug supply driven by illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues and historically large increases in overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, MOUD was still highly effective at reducing risk for fatal overdose,” Dr. Jones said.

While the use of buprenorphine in office-based settings was associated with a decreased risk of overdose death, use of extended-release naltrexone was not.

“Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in the treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Jones said. “However, research has also shown that patients have challenges getting started, or inducted, on extended-release naltrexone.”

An earlier study by Dr. Jones and colleagues showed that rates of retention were lower with extended-release naltrexone, compared with buprenorphine in office-based settings or MOUD from opioid treatment programs.

The new study included only a small number of individuals who were receiving extended-release naltrexone, which may have influenced the findings. In addition, challenges with induction and retention may be driving the results, Dr. Jones noted.

“Efforts to improve induction and retention with extended-release naltrexone are important areas for future research and clinical practice,” he added.
 

An important engagement tool

A number of questions about telehealth care for OUD remain, including whether increased access to care accounts for the reduction in drug overdose risk that the investigators found or whether other factors are at play.

“There is still more we need to understand about telehealth, such as the quality of care provided and the particular aspects of care provided by telehealth and how this influences health outcomes,” Dr. Jones said.

The results also suggest treatments for OUD are still not finding their way to patients who might benefit, he added.

“Despite the positive findings and the prior research showing that MOUD is highly effective, we found that only one in five patients received telehealth services and only one in eight received any MOUD. This really underscores the need to expand these services across clinical settings,” he added.

These and earlier findings demonstrate the potential benefits of continuing pandemic-era expansion of OUD-related telehealth services and MOUD access, Dr. Jones said.

In preparation for the end of the public health emergency on May 1, the Drug Enforcement Agency recently released a proposal that would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of buprenorphine, but for patients to receive additional prescriptions, a face-to-face meeting would be required. The proposal has drawn criticism from addiction medicine specialists.

The current study didn’t explore if or how the proposal might affect patients with OUD or whether it could blunt the positive effects of the findings.

“Prior research shows that keeping individuals engaged in treatment, including on medications, is a critical part of reducing the negative health and social impacts of opioid use disorder. Our results suggest that telehealth can be an important tool in helping patients engage in and stay connected in care,” said Dr. Jones.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Expansions in telehealth services and increased use of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) were associated with significant decreases in fatal drug overdoses during the pandemic, a new study of Medicare beneficiaries shows.

Telehealth services for opioid use disorder (OUD) were used far more often during the pandemic than before COVID-19, and those who used them were 33% less likely to die of a drug overdose.

Investigators also found a significant increase in MOUD use during the pandemic. Fatal drug overdoses were 59% less likely among individuals who received MOUD from an opioid treatment program and 38% less likely among those treated with buprenorphine in an office-based setting.

The results come as policymakers are preparing for the end of the public health emergency that prompted the expansion of OUD-related telehealth and MOUD prescribing and are deciding whether to make those expansions permanent.

“The expansion of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have had positive effects on patients receiving MOUD, improved retention among patients who received MOUD, and lowered risks for both nonfatal and fatal overdose,” lead investigator Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, told this news organization. “Our results suggest that telehealth is a valuable tool in the toolbox for expanding access to and improving retention on MOUD.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Increase in treatment

The study included 105,162 Medicare beneficiaries who began OUD treatment between March and August in 2019 (prepandemic cohort; 67.6%

aged 45-74 years), and 70,479 who began treatment between March and August of 2020 (pandemic cohort; 66.3% aged 45-74 years).

Participants had not received OUD treatment in the 6 months leading up to study enrollment and were followed for 6 months after treatment began.

Significantly more study participants received OUD-related telehealth services during the pandemic than prior to 2019 (19.6% vs. 0.6%; P < .001). Receipt of MOUD was also significantly higher in the pandemic cohort (12.6% vs. 10.8%; P < .001).

The rate of drug overdose deaths was higher in the pandemic cohort (5.1 deaths vs. 3.7 deaths per 1,000 beneficiaries; P < .001). But the percentage of deaths from drug overdoses did not differ between groups (4.8% in the prepandemic cohort vs. 5.1% in the pandemic cohort; P = .49).

In the pandemic cohort, fatal drug overdoses were 33% less likely among those who received OUD-related telehealth services (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.92); 59% less likely among those who received MOUD from opioid treatment programs (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.68), and 38% less likely among those who received buprenorphine in office-based settings (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.91).

Risk of fatal overdose was significantly lower among women and those aged 65 years and older. There were no significant differences in risk based on urban or rural residency or on ethnicity.

“Against the backdrop of a highly potent illicit drug supply driven by illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues and historically large increases in overdose deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, MOUD was still highly effective at reducing risk for fatal overdose,” Dr. Jones said.

While the use of buprenorphine in office-based settings was associated with a decreased risk of overdose death, use of extended-release naltrexone was not.

“Prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in the treatment of opioid use disorder,” Dr. Jones said. “However, research has also shown that patients have challenges getting started, or inducted, on extended-release naltrexone.”

An earlier study by Dr. Jones and colleagues showed that rates of retention were lower with extended-release naltrexone, compared with buprenorphine in office-based settings or MOUD from opioid treatment programs.

The new study included only a small number of individuals who were receiving extended-release naltrexone, which may have influenced the findings. In addition, challenges with induction and retention may be driving the results, Dr. Jones noted.

“Efforts to improve induction and retention with extended-release naltrexone are important areas for future research and clinical practice,” he added.
 

An important engagement tool

A number of questions about telehealth care for OUD remain, including whether increased access to care accounts for the reduction in drug overdose risk that the investigators found or whether other factors are at play.

“There is still more we need to understand about telehealth, such as the quality of care provided and the particular aspects of care provided by telehealth and how this influences health outcomes,” Dr. Jones said.

The results also suggest treatments for OUD are still not finding their way to patients who might benefit, he added.

“Despite the positive findings and the prior research showing that MOUD is highly effective, we found that only one in five patients received telehealth services and only one in eight received any MOUD. This really underscores the need to expand these services across clinical settings,” he added.

These and earlier findings demonstrate the potential benefits of continuing pandemic-era expansion of OUD-related telehealth services and MOUD access, Dr. Jones said.

In preparation for the end of the public health emergency on May 1, the Drug Enforcement Agency recently released a proposal that would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of buprenorphine, but for patients to receive additional prescriptions, a face-to-face meeting would be required. The proposal has drawn criticism from addiction medicine specialists.

The current study didn’t explore if or how the proposal might affect patients with OUD or whether it could blunt the positive effects of the findings.

“Prior research shows that keeping individuals engaged in treatment, including on medications, is a critical part of reducing the negative health and social impacts of opioid use disorder. Our results suggest that telehealth can be an important tool in helping patients engage in and stay connected in care,” said Dr. Jones.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Getting sweet on sweat

Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.

Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.

alex bracken/Unsplash

Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.

Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.

The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.

Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
 

The puff that vaccinates

Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.

Dr. Jeremiah Gassensmith

During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.

In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.

Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!

Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.

Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.

While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.

More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
 

Your hippocampus is showing

Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.

Dr. Michele Migliore

“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.

Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.

Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.

The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:

“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”

“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”

“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”

“I said I can find it.”

“Just ask her.”

“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?

Getting sweet on sweat

Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.

Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.

alex bracken/Unsplash

Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.

Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.

The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.

Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
 

The puff that vaccinates

Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.

Dr. Jeremiah Gassensmith

During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.

In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.

Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!

Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.

Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.

While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.

More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
 

Your hippocampus is showing

Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.

Dr. Michele Migliore

“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.

Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.

Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.

The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:

“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”

“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”

“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”

“I said I can find it.”

“Just ask her.”

“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?

Getting sweet on sweat

Are you the sort of person who struggles in social situations? Have the past 3 years been a secret respite from the terror and exhaustion of meeting new people? We understand your plight. People kind of suck. And you don’t have to look far to be reminded of it.

Unfortunately, on occasion we all have to interact with other human beings. If you suffer from social anxiety, this is not a fun thing to do. But new research indicates that there may be a way to alleviate the stress for those with social anxiety: armpits.

alex bracken/Unsplash

Specifically, sweat from the armpits of other people. Yes, this means a group of scientists gathered up some volunteers and collected their armpit sweat while the volunteers watched a variety of movies (horror, comedy, romance, etc.). Our condolences to the poor unpaid interns tasked with gathering the sweat.

Once they had their precious new medicine, the researchers took a group of women and administered a round of mindfulness therapy. Some of the participants then received the various sweats, while the rest were forced to smell only clean air. (The horror!) Lo and behold, the sweat groups had their anxiety scores reduced by about 40% after their therapy, compared with just 17% in the control group.

The researchers also found that the source of the sweat didn’t matter. Their study subjects responded the same to sweat excreted during a scary movie as they did to sweat from a comedy, a result that surprised the researchers. They suggested chemosignals in the sweat may affect the treatment response and advised further research. Which means more sweat collection! They plan on testing emotionally neutral movies next time, and if we can make a humble suggestion, they also should try the sweatiest movies.

Before the Food and Drug Administration can approve armpit sweat as a treatment for social anxiety, we have some advice for those shut-in introverts out there. Next time you have to interact with rabid extroverts, instead of shaking their hands, walk up to them and take a deep whiff of their armpits. Establish dominance. Someone will feel awkward, and science has proved it won’t be you.
 

The puff that vaccinates

Ever been shot with a Nerf gun or hit with a foam pool tube? More annoying than painful, right? If we asked if you’d rather get pelted with one of those than receive a traditional vaccine injection, you would choose the former. Maybe someday you actually will.

Dr. Jeremiah Gassensmith

During the boredom of the early pandemic lockdown, Jeremiah Gassensmith, PhD, of the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Texas, Dallas, ordered a compressed gas–powered jet injection system to fool around with at home. Hey, who didn’t? Anyway, when it was time to go back to the lab he handed it over to one of his grad students, Yalini Wijesundara, and asked her to see what could be done with it.

In her tinkering she found that the jet injector could deliver metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that can hold a bunch of different materials, like proteins and nucleic acids, through the skin.

Thus the “MOF-Jet” was born!

Jet injectors are nothing new, but they hurt. The MOF-Jet, however, is practically painless and cheaper than the gene guns that veterinarians use to inject biological cargo attached to the surface of a metal microparticle.

Changing the carrier gas also changes the time needed to break down the MOF and thus alters delivery of the drug inside. “If you shoot it with carbon dioxide, it will release its cargo faster within cells; if you use regular air, it will take 4 or 5 days,” Ms. Wijesundara explained in a written statement. That means the same drug could be released over different timescales without changing its formulation.

While testing on onion cells and mice, Ms. Wijesundara noted that it was as easy as “pointing and shooting” to distribute the puff of gas into the cells. A saving grace to those with needle anxiety. Not that we would know anything about needle anxiety.

More testing needs to be done before bringing this technology to human use, obviously, but we’re looking forward to saying goodbye to that dreaded prick and hello to a puff.
 

Your hippocampus is showing

Brain anatomy is one of the many, many things that’s not really our thing, but we do know a cool picture when we see one. Case in point: The image just below, which happens to be a full-scale, single-cell resolution model of the CA1 region of the hippocampus that “replicates the structure and architecture of the area, along with the position and relative connectivity of the neurons,” according to a statement from the Human Brain Project.

Dr. Michele Migliore

“We have performed a data mining operation on high resolution images of the human hippocampus, obtained from the BigBrain database. The position of individual neurons has been derived from a detailed analysis of these images,” said senior author Michele Migliore, PhD, of the Italian National Research Council’s Institute of Biophysics in Palermo.

Yes, he did say BigBrain database. BigBrain is – we checked and it’s definitely not this – a 3D model of a brain that was sectioned into 7,404 slices just 20 micrometers thick and then scanned by MRI. Digital reconstruction of those slices was done by supercomputer and the results are now available for analysis.

Dr. Migliore and his associates developed an image-processing algorithm to obtain neuronal positioning distribution and an algorithm to generate neuronal connectivity by approximating the shapes of dendrites and axons. (Our brains are starting to hurt just trying to write this.) “Some fit into narrow cones, others have a broad complex extension that can be approximated by dedicated geometrical volumes, and the connectivity to nearby neurons changes accordingly,” explained lead author Daniela Gandolfi of the University of Modena (Italy) and Reggio Emilia.

The investigators have made their dataset and the extraction methodology available on the EBRAINS platform and through the Human Brain Project and are moving on to other brain regions. And then, once everyone can find their way in and around the old gray matter, it should bring an end to conversations like this, which no doubt occur between male and female neuroscientists every day:

“Arnold, I think we’re lost.”

“Don’t worry, Bev, I know where I’m going.”

“Stop and ask this lady for directions.”

“I said I can find it.”

“Just ask her.”

“Fine. Excuse me, ma’am, can you tell us how to get to the corpora quadrigemina from here?

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of the overdose reversal agent Narcan (naloxone, Emergent BioSolutions). Greater access to the drug should mean more lives saved. However, it’s unclear how much the nasal spray will cost and whether pharmacies will stock the product openly on shelves. 

Currently, major pharmacy chains such as CVS and Walgreens make naloxone available without prescription, but consumers have to ask a pharmacist to dispense the drug.

“The major question is what is it going to cost,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, said in an interview. “In order for people to access it they have to be able to afford it.”

“We won’t accomplish much if people can’t afford to buy Narcan,” said Chuck Ingoglia, president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, in a statement. Still, he applauded the FDA.

“No single approach will end overdose deaths but making Narcan easy to obtain and widely available likely will save countless lives annually,” he said.

“The timeline for availability and price of this OTC product is determined by the manufacturer,” the FDA said in a statement.

Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, called for the drug’s manufacturer to “make accessibility to the product a priority by making it available as soon as possible and at an affordable price.”

Emergent BioSolutions did not comment on cost. It said in a statement that the spray “will be available on U.S. shelves and at online retailers by the late summer,” after it has adapted Narcan for direct-to-consumer use, including more consumer-oriented packaging.

Naloxone’s cost varies, depending on geographic location and whether it is generic. According to GoodRX, a box containing two doses of generic naloxone costs $31-$100, depending on location and coupon availability.

A two-dose box of Narcan costs $135-$140. Emergent reported a 14% decline in naloxone sales in 2022 – to $373.7 million – blaming it in part on the introduction of generic formulations.

Dr. Hurley said he expects those who purchase Narcan at a drug store will primarily already be shopping there. It may or may not be those who most often experience overdose, such as people leaving incarceration or experiencing homelessness.

Having Narcan available over-the-counter “is an important supplement but it doesn’t replace the existing array of naloxone distribution programs,” Dr. Hurley said.

The FDA has encouraged naloxone manufacturers to seek OTC approval for the medication since at least 2019, when it designed a model label for a theoretical OTC product.

In November, the agency said it had determined that some naloxone products had the potential to be safe and effective for OTC use and again urged drugmakers to seek such an approval.

Emergent BioSolutions was the first to pursue OTC approval, but another manufacturer – the nonprofit Harm Reduction Therapeutics – is awaiting approval of its application to sell its spray directly to consumers.

Scott Gottlieb, MD, who was the FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019, said in a tweet that more work needed to be done.

“This regulatory move should be followed by a strong push by elected officials to support wider deployment of Narcan, getting more doses into the hands of at risk households and frontline workers,” he tweeted.

Mr. Ingoglia said that “Narcan represents a second chance. By giving people a second chance, we also give them an opportunity to enter treatment if they so choose. You can’t recover if you’re dead, and we shouldn’t turn our backs on those who may choose a pathway to recovery that includes treatment.”
 

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

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) due to commotio cordis occurs more frequently in non–sport-related settings than is commonly thought, resulting in lower rates of resuscitation and increased mortality, especially among young women, a new review suggests.

The condition is rare, caused by an often fatal arrhythmia secondary to a blunt, nonpenetrating impact over the precordium, without direct structural damage to the heart itself. Common causes in nonsport settings include assault, motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), and daily activities such as occupational accidents.

“We found a stark difference in mortality outcomes between non–sport-related commotio cordis compared to sport-related events,” at 88% vs. 66%, Han S. Lim, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia, told this news organization. “Rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation (17% vs. 81%) were considerably lower in the non–sport-related events.”

“Although still being male-predominant, of concern, we saw a higher proportion of females in non–sport-related commotio cordis due to assault, MVAs, and other activities,” he noted. Such events may occur “in secluded domestic settings, may not be witnessed, or may occur as intentional harm, whereby the witness could also be the perpetrator, reducing the likelihood of prompt diagnosis, CPR, and defibrillation administration.”

The study was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
 

Young women affected

Dr. Lim and colleagues searched the literature through 2021 for all cases of commotio cordis. Three hundred and thirty-four cases from among 53 citations were included in the analysis; of those, 121 (36%) occurred in non–sport-related settings, including assault (76%), MVAs (7%), and daily activities (16%). “Daily activities” comprised activities that were expected in a person’s day-to-day routine such as falls, play fighting (in children), and occupational accidents.

Non–sport-related cases primarily involved nonprojectile etiologies (95%), including bodily contact (79%), such as impacts from fists, feet, and knees; impacts with handlebars or steering wheels; and solid stick-like weapons and flat surfaces.

Sport-related cases involved a significantly higher proportion of projectiles (94% vs. 5%) and occurred across a range of sports, mostly at the competitive level (66%).

Both sport-related and non–sport-related commotio cordis affected a similar younger demographic (mean age, 19; mostly males). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were seen with regard to previous cardiac history or family history of cardiac disease, or in arrhythmias on electrocardiogram, biomarkers, or imaging findings.

However, in non–sport-related events, the proportion of females affected was significantly higher (13% vs. 2%), as was mortality (88% vs. 66%). Rates were lower for CPR (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation use (17% vs. 81%), and resuscitation was more commonly delayed beyond 3 minutes (80% vs. 5%).

The finding that more than a third of reported cases were non–sport-related “is higher than previously reported, and included data from 15 different countries,” the authors noted.

Study limitations included the use of data only from published studies, inclusion of a case series limited to fatal cases, small sample sizes, and lack of consistent reporting of demographic data, mechanisms, investigation results, management, and outcomes.
 

Increased awareness ‘essential’

Dr. Lim and colleagues concluded that increased awareness of non–sport-related commotio cordis is “essential” for early recognition, resuscitation, and mortality reduction. 

Jim Cheung, MD, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s electrophysiology section, “completely agrees.” Greater awareness among the general population could reduce barriers to CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) use, he said, which in turn, can lead to improved survival.

Furthermore, Dr. Cheung added, “This study underscores the importance of ensuring that non–cardiology-trained physicians such as emergency medicine physicians and trauma surgeons who might encounter patients with non–sports-related commotio cordis recognize the entity during the course of treatment.”

Because the review relied only on published cases, “it may not represent the true breadth of cases that are occurring in the real world,” he noted. “I suspect that cases that occur outside of sports-related activities, such as MVAs and assault, are more likely to be underreported and that the true proportion of non–sports-related commotio cordis may be significantly higher than 36%.” Increased reporting of cases as part of an international commotio cordis registry would help provide additional insights, he suggested.

“There is a common misperception that SCA only occurs among older patients and patients with known coronary artery disease or heart failure,” he said. “For us to move the needle on improving SCA survival, we will need to tackle the problem from multiple angles including increasing public awareness, training the public on CPR and AED use, and improving access to AEDs by addressing structural barriers.”

Dr. Cheung pointed to ongoing efforts by nonprofit, patient-driven organizations such as the SADS Foundation and Omar Carter Foundation, and professional societies such as the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society, to direct public awareness campaigns and legislative proposals to address this problem.

Similar efforts are underway among cardiac societies and SCA awareness groups in Australia, Dr. Lim said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
 

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

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) due to commotio cordis occurs more frequently in non–sport-related settings than is commonly thought, resulting in lower rates of resuscitation and increased mortality, especially among young women, a new review suggests.

The condition is rare, caused by an often fatal arrhythmia secondary to a blunt, nonpenetrating impact over the precordium, without direct structural damage to the heart itself. Common causes in nonsport settings include assault, motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), and daily activities such as occupational accidents.

“We found a stark difference in mortality outcomes between non–sport-related commotio cordis compared to sport-related events,” at 88% vs. 66%, Han S. Lim, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia, told this news organization. “Rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation (17% vs. 81%) were considerably lower in the non–sport-related events.”

“Although still being male-predominant, of concern, we saw a higher proportion of females in non–sport-related commotio cordis due to assault, MVAs, and other activities,” he noted. Such events may occur “in secluded domestic settings, may not be witnessed, or may occur as intentional harm, whereby the witness could also be the perpetrator, reducing the likelihood of prompt diagnosis, CPR, and defibrillation administration.”

The study was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
 

Young women affected

Dr. Lim and colleagues searched the literature through 2021 for all cases of commotio cordis. Three hundred and thirty-four cases from among 53 citations were included in the analysis; of those, 121 (36%) occurred in non–sport-related settings, including assault (76%), MVAs (7%), and daily activities (16%). “Daily activities” comprised activities that were expected in a person’s day-to-day routine such as falls, play fighting (in children), and occupational accidents.

Non–sport-related cases primarily involved nonprojectile etiologies (95%), including bodily contact (79%), such as impacts from fists, feet, and knees; impacts with handlebars or steering wheels; and solid stick-like weapons and flat surfaces.

Sport-related cases involved a significantly higher proportion of projectiles (94% vs. 5%) and occurred across a range of sports, mostly at the competitive level (66%).

Both sport-related and non–sport-related commotio cordis affected a similar younger demographic (mean age, 19; mostly males). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were seen with regard to previous cardiac history or family history of cardiac disease, or in arrhythmias on electrocardiogram, biomarkers, or imaging findings.

However, in non–sport-related events, the proportion of females affected was significantly higher (13% vs. 2%), as was mortality (88% vs. 66%). Rates were lower for CPR (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation use (17% vs. 81%), and resuscitation was more commonly delayed beyond 3 minutes (80% vs. 5%).

The finding that more than a third of reported cases were non–sport-related “is higher than previously reported, and included data from 15 different countries,” the authors noted.

Study limitations included the use of data only from published studies, inclusion of a case series limited to fatal cases, small sample sizes, and lack of consistent reporting of demographic data, mechanisms, investigation results, management, and outcomes.
 

Increased awareness ‘essential’

Dr. Lim and colleagues concluded that increased awareness of non–sport-related commotio cordis is “essential” for early recognition, resuscitation, and mortality reduction. 

Jim Cheung, MD, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s electrophysiology section, “completely agrees.” Greater awareness among the general population could reduce barriers to CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) use, he said, which in turn, can lead to improved survival.

Furthermore, Dr. Cheung added, “This study underscores the importance of ensuring that non–cardiology-trained physicians such as emergency medicine physicians and trauma surgeons who might encounter patients with non–sports-related commotio cordis recognize the entity during the course of treatment.”

Because the review relied only on published cases, “it may not represent the true breadth of cases that are occurring in the real world,” he noted. “I suspect that cases that occur outside of sports-related activities, such as MVAs and assault, are more likely to be underreported and that the true proportion of non–sports-related commotio cordis may be significantly higher than 36%.” Increased reporting of cases as part of an international commotio cordis registry would help provide additional insights, he suggested.

“There is a common misperception that SCA only occurs among older patients and patients with known coronary artery disease or heart failure,” he said. “For us to move the needle on improving SCA survival, we will need to tackle the problem from multiple angles including increasing public awareness, training the public on CPR and AED use, and improving access to AEDs by addressing structural barriers.”

Dr. Cheung pointed to ongoing efforts by nonprofit, patient-driven organizations such as the SADS Foundation and Omar Carter Foundation, and professional societies such as the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society, to direct public awareness campaigns and legislative proposals to address this problem.

Similar efforts are underway among cardiac societies and SCA awareness groups in Australia, Dr. Lim said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
 

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

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) due to commotio cordis occurs more frequently in non–sport-related settings than is commonly thought, resulting in lower rates of resuscitation and increased mortality, especially among young women, a new review suggests.

The condition is rare, caused by an often fatal arrhythmia secondary to a blunt, nonpenetrating impact over the precordium, without direct structural damage to the heart itself. Common causes in nonsport settings include assault, motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), and daily activities such as occupational accidents.

“We found a stark difference in mortality outcomes between non–sport-related commotio cordis compared to sport-related events,” at 88% vs. 66%, Han S. Lim, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia, told this news organization. “Rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation (17% vs. 81%) were considerably lower in the non–sport-related events.”

“Although still being male-predominant, of concern, we saw a higher proportion of females in non–sport-related commotio cordis due to assault, MVAs, and other activities,” he noted. Such events may occur “in secluded domestic settings, may not be witnessed, or may occur as intentional harm, whereby the witness could also be the perpetrator, reducing the likelihood of prompt diagnosis, CPR, and defibrillation administration.”

The study was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
 

Young women affected

Dr. Lim and colleagues searched the literature through 2021 for all cases of commotio cordis. Three hundred and thirty-four cases from among 53 citations were included in the analysis; of those, 121 (36%) occurred in non–sport-related settings, including assault (76%), MVAs (7%), and daily activities (16%). “Daily activities” comprised activities that were expected in a person’s day-to-day routine such as falls, play fighting (in children), and occupational accidents.

Non–sport-related cases primarily involved nonprojectile etiologies (95%), including bodily contact (79%), such as impacts from fists, feet, and knees; impacts with handlebars or steering wheels; and solid stick-like weapons and flat surfaces.

Sport-related cases involved a significantly higher proportion of projectiles (94% vs. 5%) and occurred across a range of sports, mostly at the competitive level (66%).

Both sport-related and non–sport-related commotio cordis affected a similar younger demographic (mean age, 19; mostly males). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were seen with regard to previous cardiac history or family history of cardiac disease, or in arrhythmias on electrocardiogram, biomarkers, or imaging findings.

However, in non–sport-related events, the proportion of females affected was significantly higher (13% vs. 2%), as was mortality (88% vs. 66%). Rates were lower for CPR (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation use (17% vs. 81%), and resuscitation was more commonly delayed beyond 3 minutes (80% vs. 5%).

The finding that more than a third of reported cases were non–sport-related “is higher than previously reported, and included data from 15 different countries,” the authors noted.

Study limitations included the use of data only from published studies, inclusion of a case series limited to fatal cases, small sample sizes, and lack of consistent reporting of demographic data, mechanisms, investigation results, management, and outcomes.
 

Increased awareness ‘essential’

Dr. Lim and colleagues concluded that increased awareness of non–sport-related commotio cordis is “essential” for early recognition, resuscitation, and mortality reduction. 

Jim Cheung, MD, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s electrophysiology section, “completely agrees.” Greater awareness among the general population could reduce barriers to CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) use, he said, which in turn, can lead to improved survival.

Furthermore, Dr. Cheung added, “This study underscores the importance of ensuring that non–cardiology-trained physicians such as emergency medicine physicians and trauma surgeons who might encounter patients with non–sports-related commotio cordis recognize the entity during the course of treatment.”

Because the review relied only on published cases, “it may not represent the true breadth of cases that are occurring in the real world,” he noted. “I suspect that cases that occur outside of sports-related activities, such as MVAs and assault, are more likely to be underreported and that the true proportion of non–sports-related commotio cordis may be significantly higher than 36%.” Increased reporting of cases as part of an international commotio cordis registry would help provide additional insights, he suggested.

“There is a common misperception that SCA only occurs among older patients and patients with known coronary artery disease or heart failure,” he said. “For us to move the needle on improving SCA survival, we will need to tackle the problem from multiple angles including increasing public awareness, training the public on CPR and AED use, and improving access to AEDs by addressing structural barriers.”

Dr. Cheung pointed to ongoing efforts by nonprofit, patient-driven organizations such as the SADS Foundation and Omar Carter Foundation, and professional societies such as the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society, to direct public awareness campaigns and legislative proposals to address this problem.

Similar efforts are underway among cardiac societies and SCA awareness groups in Australia, Dr. Lim said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
 

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

Diets consisting of high-quality – but not low-quality – plant-based foods and lower intakes of animal products may lower the risks for cancer, heart disease, and early death, new research suggests.

The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.

By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.

“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
 

High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes

The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.

Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.

Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.

Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).

During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.

Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.

After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.

At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).

Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).

Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).

No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.

And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.

Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets consisting of high-quality – but not low-quality – plant-based foods and lower intakes of animal products may lower the risks for cancer, heart disease, and early death, new research suggests.

The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.

By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.

“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
 

High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes

The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.

Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.

Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.

Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).

During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.

Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.

After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.

At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).

Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).

Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).

No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.

And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.

Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets consisting of high-quality – but not low-quality – plant-based foods and lower intakes of animal products may lower the risks for cancer, heart disease, and early death, new research suggests.

The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.

By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.

“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
 

High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes

The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.

Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.

Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.

Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).

During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.

Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.

After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.

At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).

Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).

Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).

No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.

And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.

Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.

Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.

The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.

In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.

These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.

“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.

“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
 

Proceed with caution

The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.

The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.

Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.

Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.

Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.

The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.

In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.

These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.

“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.

“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
 

Proceed with caution

The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.

The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.

Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.

Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.

Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.

The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.

In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.

These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.

“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.

“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
 

Proceed with caution

The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.

The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.

Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.

Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Pregnancy-related deaths have surged as much as 40% during the pandemic, with the increase entirely linked to COVID-19, according to a pair of recent reports. The rise in deaths was most pronounced among Black mothers.

In 2021, 1,205 women died from pregnancy-related causes, making the year one of the worst for maternal mortality in U.S. history, according to newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maternal mortality is defined as occurring during pregnancy, at delivery, or soon after delivery.

COVID was the driver of the increased death rate, according to a study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers noted that unvaccinated pregnant people are more likely to get severe COVID, and that prenatal and postnatal care were disrupted during the early part of the pandemic. From July 2021 to March 2023, the rate of women being vaccinated before pregnancy has risen from 22% to 70%, CDC data show.

Maternal mortality rates jumped the most among Black women, who in 2021 had a maternal mortality rate of nearly 70 deaths per 100,000 live births, which was 2.6 times the rate for White women. 

Existing risks based on a mother’s age also increased from 2020 to 2021. The maternal mortality rates by age in 2021 per 100,000 live births were:

• 20.4 for women under age 25.
• 31.3 for women ages 25 to 39.
• 138.5 for women ages 40 and older.

Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD, FACOG, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, called the situation “stunning” and “preventable.”

The findings “send a resounding message that maternal health and evidence-based efforts to eliminate racial health inequities need to be, and remain, a top public health priority,” Dr. Hoskins said in a statement.

“The COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic and tragic effect on maternal death rates, but we cannot let that fact obscure that there was – and still is – already a maternal mortality crisis to compound,” she said.

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

Pregnancy-related deaths have surged as much as 40% during the pandemic, with the increase entirely linked to COVID-19, according to a pair of recent reports. The rise in deaths was most pronounced among Black mothers.

In 2021, 1,205 women died from pregnancy-related causes, making the year one of the worst for maternal mortality in U.S. history, according to newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maternal mortality is defined as occurring during pregnancy, at delivery, or soon after delivery.

COVID was the driver of the increased death rate, according to a study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers noted that unvaccinated pregnant people are more likely to get severe COVID, and that prenatal and postnatal care were disrupted during the early part of the pandemic. From July 2021 to March 2023, the rate of women being vaccinated before pregnancy has risen from 22% to 70%, CDC data show.

Maternal mortality rates jumped the most among Black women, who in 2021 had a maternal mortality rate of nearly 70 deaths per 100,000 live births, which was 2.6 times the rate for White women. 

Existing risks based on a mother’s age also increased from 2020 to 2021. The maternal mortality rates by age in 2021 per 100,000 live births were:

• 20.4 for women under age 25.
• 31.3 for women ages 25 to 39.
• 138.5 for women ages 40 and older.

Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD, FACOG, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, called the situation “stunning” and “preventable.”

The findings “send a resounding message that maternal health and evidence-based efforts to eliminate racial health inequities need to be, and remain, a top public health priority,” Dr. Hoskins said in a statement.

“The COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic and tragic effect on maternal death rates, but we cannot let that fact obscure that there was – and still is – already a maternal mortality crisis to compound,” she said.

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

Pregnancy-related deaths have surged as much as 40% during the pandemic, with the increase entirely linked to COVID-19, according to a pair of recent reports. The rise in deaths was most pronounced among Black mothers.

In 2021, 1,205 women died from pregnancy-related causes, making the year one of the worst for maternal mortality in U.S. history, according to newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Maternal mortality is defined as occurring during pregnancy, at delivery, or soon after delivery.

COVID was the driver of the increased death rate, according to a study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers noted that unvaccinated pregnant people are more likely to get severe COVID, and that prenatal and postnatal care were disrupted during the early part of the pandemic. From July 2021 to March 2023, the rate of women being vaccinated before pregnancy has risen from 22% to 70%, CDC data show.

Maternal mortality rates jumped the most among Black women, who in 2021 had a maternal mortality rate of nearly 70 deaths per 100,000 live births, which was 2.6 times the rate for White women. 

Existing risks based on a mother’s age also increased from 2020 to 2021. The maternal mortality rates by age in 2021 per 100,000 live births were:

• 20.4 for women under age 25.
• 31.3 for women ages 25 to 39.
• 138.5 for women ages 40 and older.

Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, MD, FACOG, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, called the situation “stunning” and “preventable.”

The findings “send a resounding message that maternal health and evidence-based efforts to eliminate racial health inequities need to be, and remain, a top public health priority,” Dr. Hoskins said in a statement.

“The COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic and tragic effect on maternal death rates, but we cannot let that fact obscure that there was – and still is – already a maternal mortality crisis to compound,” she said.

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

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

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

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

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

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

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

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Despite decades of research, there’s still considerable uncertainty about the comparative effectiveness and safety of analgesics for the treatment of acute low back pain, new research shows.

Higher-quality randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons are needed, study investigator Michael A. Wewege, PhD candidate, research fellow, University of New South Wales and Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, said in an interview.

“Until then, doctors should use caution when prescribing analgesic medicines for adults with nonspecific acute low back pain. They should use this new evidence in line with their own expertise and the patient sitting in front of them when making any decision about a medication,” he added.

The findings were published online  in the BMJ. 
 

Poor quality evidence

Analgesics such as ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and codeine are widely used to treat nonspecific low-back pain, which is defined as pain lasting less than 6 weeks, but evidence for the comparative efficacy of these agents is limited.

To fill this knowledge gap, the researchers conducted a systematic review and analysis of controlled trials comparing analgesics with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment in patients with acute, nonspecific low back pain.

The review involved 98 randomized controlled trials that included 15,134 adults (49% women) aged 30-60 years with pain duration ranging from 24 hours to 21 days. The median baseline pain intensity was 65 on a pain scale of 0-100.

Of the included trials, 39% were placebo controlled, 67% masked both participants and clinicians, and 41% reported industry sponsorship.

The studies compared an analgesic medicine with another analgesic, placebo, or no treatment comprised of usual care or being placed on a wait list.

Study medications, which had to be approved in the United States, Europe, or Australia, included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, muscle relaxants, and corticosteroids.

These drugs were administered systemically as a single drug or in combination formulations, at any dose.

Researchers used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct and indirect information across a network of randomized clinical trials to estimate the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments.

The primary outcomes were reductions in low back pain intensity (measured with a visual analogue scale), numerical rating scale or another ordinal scale, and safety as indicated by the number of participants who had any adverse event.

Investigators found several medications were associated with large reductions in pain intensity, compared with placebo, though with low or very low confidence.

Low or very low confidence was found for reduced pain intensity after treatment with tolperisone (mean difference, −26.1; 95% confidence interval, −34.0 to −18.2), aceclofenac plus tizanidine (mean difference, −26.1; 95% CI, −38.5 to −13.6), pregabalin (mean difference, −24.7; 95% CI, −34.6 to −14.7), and 14 other medicines, compared with placebo, the researchers report.

In addition, they found low or very low confidence for no difference between the effects of several of these medications.

Increased adverse events had moderate to very low confidence with tramadol (risk ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), baclofen (RR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.4), and paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), compared with placebo, the investigators add.

“These medicines could increase the risk of adverse events, compared with other medicines with moderate to low confidence. Moderate to low confidence was also noted for secondary outcomes and secondary analysis of medicine classes,” the researchers note.

The review suggested 14 additional comparisons favored the treatment over placebo, all with very low confidence except for one with low confidence.

In the 68 trials that included the number of participants reporting an adverse event, there was moderate confidence for increased adverse events with the opioid tramadol (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5), paracetamol plus sustained release tramadol (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8), paracetamol plus tramadol (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4), and low confidence for baclofen (RR, 2.3; 1.5-3.4), compared with placebo.

The review also uncovered moderate to low confidence for secondary outcomes, which included low back-specific function, serious adverse events, and acceptability (number of participants who dropped out).
 

Unexpected findings

The new results were somewhat unexpected, said Mr. Wewege.

“When we set out to do this review, we envisioned the evidence would be a lot more comprehensive. We didn’t think it would be so disconnected and there would be so few trials looking at the different comparisons that would lead us to have low confidence in most of the findings.”

Various factors contributed to this low confidence, he said. One was the risk of bias – about 90% of trials had some concerns or high risk of bias. Another factor was the heterogeneity in effect estimates.

Most of the evidence is based on studies comparing different analgesics to placebo, Mr. Wewege noted. The lack of head-to-head drug comparisons is because “the easiest way to get a drug approved is just to demonstrate it’s better than placebo,” he said.

In addition to these new findings, clinicians should consider a medication’s availability, their own expertise, and patient preferences when selecting an analgesic, said Mr. Wewege. He noted most patients with acute low back pain get better within a few weeks without any intervention.

“Patients should be reassured that things will heal naturally and that they are not going to be in pain forever,” he said.
 

Determining optimal treatment is key

Chris Gilligan, MD, associate chief medical officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and associate professor of anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said determining which medications are optimal is “key,” as acute low back pain is very common and analgesics are used frequently.

The new review does provide information on which medications have the strongest evidence for pain reduction, said Dr. Gilligan. “On the one hand, it directionally points you towards certain medications, and even certain classes of medication, for comparative effectiveness.”

However, he said, the confidence for this effectiveness is low or very low, “so I wouldn’t overweight it.”

The data on adverse effects, where the confidence is mostly moderate to low, might have more of an influence on prescribing, he said.

“For example, there’s some indication tramadol may be more closely associated with adverse events in patients with acute low back pain and that would add to our caution about using tramadol; it’s not that we would never use it, but [we]would take that into account.”

Dr. Gilligan agrees clinicians should be cautious about prescribing analgesics for low back pain. One reason for being conservative in terms of treatments, he noted, is that “acute low back pain has a very favorable natural history.”

While clinical practice guidelines recommend nonpharmacologic therapies as first- and second-line treatment for acute, nonspecific low back pain, Dr. Gilligan noted that as with drugs, evidence for nondrug therapies also has low or very low confidence.

The study received funding from a 2020 Exercise Physiology Research (Consumables) Grant from the University of New South Wales, which was used to obtain translations of studies published in languages other than English.

Mr. Wewege was supported by a Postgraduate Scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, a School of Medical Sciences Top-Up Scholarship from the University of New South Wales, and a PhD Supplementary Scholarship from Neuroscience Research Australia. Dr. Gilligan reports that he conducts clinical trials with companies and groups, including the National Institutes of Health related to medications, devices, and procedures for pain.

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

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.

Disparities in statin use in minority populations persist regardless of insurance status and 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Those are among the findings of a study that sampled a national population database and has provided robust data and granular details on those disparities.

The researchers reported in JAMA Cardiology that the overall prevalence of statin use was 25.5%, and that it varied significantly between defined ethnic groups: 20% for Blacks, 15.4% for Hispanics, and 27.9% for Whites (P < .001). Statin use rates by Asian participants, at 25.5%, didn’t differ significantly from use by Whites.

University of Utah Intermountain Health

“We know that there are racial and ethnic disparities in the use of guideline-indicated statins after having established heart disease, but it was unknown if these disparities existed in the use of guideline-indicated statins for prevention of heart disease in those who just have risk factors,” lead author Joshua Jacobs, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist of cardiovascular medicine at University of Utah Intermountain Healthcare, said in written comments. “Additionally, race is included in the guideline-recommended risk factor calculation in an effort to reduce these disparities.”

Dr. Jacobs and colleagues evaluated statins for use in primary prevention, building upon previous single-center or diabetes-only cohort studies. What makes their study different from previous studies evaluating disparities in statin use is its use of temporal trends or current 10-year predicted ASCVD risk categorization, he said.

Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the researchers performed a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 3,417 participants that they said represented 39.4 million U.S. adults after applying sampling weights for age, gender, and race and ethnicity. In the weighted sample, 62.2% were men. In terms of self-reported race and ethnicity, 4.2% were of Asian descent, 12.7% were Black, 10.1% were Hispanic, and 73% were White.

Study participants completed a standardized questionnaire given by trained interviewers and also went to mobile examination centers where physical, anthropomorphic, and laboratory measurements, including height, weight, LDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose were collected. Pill bottle review also verified participants’ self-reported medication use.

The study noted that for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline recommends statins for, among other patient factors, elevated 10-year predicted ASCVD risk. The study divided ASCVD risk strata into three groups – 5% to less than 7.5%, 7.5% to less than 20%, and more than 20% – based on the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline and used pooled cohort equation to calculate 10-year ASCVD risk, which the guideline endorses.

Gaps persist despite ASCVD risk

The analysis found no statistically significant difference within each ASCVD risk strata between the White and Asian groups. But although statin use increased proportionately across each higher risk group, the gap widened noticeably in the highest risk group (more than 20% 10-year risk) between Whites, used as the reference at 37.6%, and Blacks (23.8%; prevalence ratio, .90; 95% confidence interval, .82-.98) and Hispanics (23.9%; PR, .90; 95% CI, .81-.99).

The study also evaluated a number of social determinants of health factors. Health insurance and access to routine health care were significantly associated with greater statin use in Black, Hispanic, and White participants; marital status and food insecurity were not. However, even when variables such as education, household income, and health insurance were applied, statin use was still significantly higher in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics. For those with health insurance, statin use was 28.6% (95% CI, 25-32), 21.1% (95% CI, 17.3-25.4) and 19.9% (95% CI, 15.9-24.5), respectively.

The study noted that the pooled cohort equation-guided approach to statins for primary prevention, which the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline endorsed, should promote greater use of statins among Black patients. “Equitable use of statin therapy for prevention of heart disease is needed for Black and Hispanic adults,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Improvements in access to care, such as having a routine primary care clinician and health insurance, may decrease these health disparities.”

UT Southwestern Medical Center

A goal of the study was to identify if disparities in statin use held up across different risk groups, senior author Ambarish Pandey, MD, said in an interview. Use of the NHANES data makes this study unique among analyses of statin use disparities, he said.

“A lot of the work that has been done previously has focused on secondary prevention among patients who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have focused on single-center or hospital-based cohorts and have not really focused on a national representative cohort like NHANES,” said Dr. Pandey, of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The next step is to do community-based participatory research focusing on different implementation strategies to increase the uptake of preventive statin use among Black and Hispanic communities, Dr. Jacobs said.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Pandey disclosed relationships with Gilead Sciences, Applied Therapeutics, Myovista, Tricog Health, Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Rivus, Roche Diagnostics, Pieces Technologies, Palomarin, Emmi Solutions, and Axon.