ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 16-year-old girl with no chronic medical illness presents to your office with her parents after sustaining a head injury at a soccer game over the weekend. She collided with another player while attempting to head the ball. Immediately afterward, she was taken off the field and assessed. She was confused but had a normal level of consciousness and denied vision changes, weakness or tingling in her arms or legs, severe headache, or neck pain. Further testing revealed dizziness and abnormal balance. Her confusion and abnormal balance resolved after 1 day. She has had a mild headache and light sensitivity since the event. She otherwise feels well at rest in the office. She wants to recover quickly but safely and has heard conflicting statements about whether she should completely rest or start back to light activity now.

Sports-related concussions (SRCs) are highly prevalent in the United States, with as many as 3.8 million cases annually. Of those, 1.1 to 1.9 million cases are in children 18 years old or younger.^2,3 SRCs are defined by the Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) 2017 consensus statement as involving the following criteria: (1) direct or indirect trauma anywhere on the body with force transmitted to the head; (2) rapid or delayed symptom presentation, typically with spontaneous resolution; (3) functional rather than structural injury; and (4) occurrence with or without loss of consciousness with stepwise symptom resolution.⁴

SRCs do not have a proven, effective treatment and can have short- or long-term consequences. Initial treatment includes removing athletes from play immediately after an event. The American Academy of Neurology recommends that athletes not return to play until the concussion is resolved, as judged by a health care provider, and the athlete is asymptomatic when off medication.²

The CISG recommends a 6-step approach, with each step taking at least 24 hours.⁴ The final step is a return to normal activity.⁴ This working group recommended extensive study of rehabilitation programs involving subsymptom threshold exercise (ie, exercise performed at a level that does not exacerbate symptoms) before implementation as routine practice. Evidence from a 2015 study suggests that following strict rest for 5 days until complete symptom resolution may prolong recovery compared with rest for only 1 to 2 days.⁵ Additionally, strict rest did not show a difference in neurocognitive or balance outcomes in that study, and the authors noted it may also negatively impact academic, sports, and social function in adolescents.⁵ This study looked at the potential benefit of subsymptom threshold exercise during recovery from SRC.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Light aerobic exercise may help speed recovery

This multicenter, prospective, parallel, randomized clinical trial compared subsymptom threshold aerobic exercise to ­placebo-like stretching. Patients were included if they were ages 13 to 18 years and presented within 10 days of an SRC, as diagnosed using the CISG criteria. Exclusion criteria included focal neurologic deficits; history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury; inability to exercise due to orthopedic injury, cervical spine injury, diabetes, or heart disease; increased cardiac risk; or low postconcussion symptom severity. Patients with a diagnosis of and treatment with medication for ­attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, anxiety, or learning disorder were excluded, as were patients with a history of more than 3 previous concussions.

It’s unclear whether subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with > 3 concussions were excluded from this study.

Patients in the aerobic exercise group were instructed to use a stationary bike or treadmill (or equivalent walking or jogging if they did not have access to this equipment) at a prescribed heart rate. The target heart rate was 80% of the heart rate achieved during initial assessment with the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT).⁶ Patients in this group were instructed to exercise for 20 minutes or to the point at which their symptoms increased by 2 points (on a 10-point scale) from pre-exercise levels, whichever came first, with rest prescribed at all other times.

For the placebo-like group, a stretching instruction booklet was provided, with the goal of achieving a heart rate that was not significantly elevated. Participants in this group were told to perform the stretches for 20 minutes daily. Of note, researchers ensured the level of physician and research staff attention was similar for each patient, regardless of treatment group, to prevent intervention bias. Additionally, interventions were not initiated prior to 48 hours from the time of injury.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was number of days to recovery since the date of injury. This was defined as symptom resolution to normal (as evaluated by a physician blinded to the study group) and by the patient’s ability to exercise to exhaustion without symptom exacerbation on the BCTT. Secondary outcomes measured the proportion of patients with delayed recovery (defined as recovery requiring > 30 days) and daily symptom scores.

Of 165 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 52 patients were excluded prior to randomization (12 patients chose not to participate, 39 were excluded for lack of symptoms, and 1 withdrew due to severe symptoms on the BCTT). A total of 113 were randomized to either group, and 103 patients completed the study (10 patients did not complete the study or had another illness during the intervention). The study analysis included 52 patients in the aerobic exercise group and 51 in the placebo-like stretching group. The study was powered to detect a significant difference in recovery time.

Patients were about equally divided by sex, with a mean age of 15 years. Patients who had no previous concussion made up 50% of the aerobic group and 57% of the stretching group. The average time since injury was similar in the aerobic and stretching groups (4.9 days and 4.8 days, respectively). The aerobic exercise group recovered in a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-18.5 days) compared with a median of 17 days (IQR = 13-23 days) for the stretching group (P = .009). The incidence of delayed recovery (> 30 days) was higher in the stretching group (n = 7) compared with the aerobic exercise group (n = 2) but was not statistically significant. Daily symptom reporting occurred at a high rate in both groups, with patients stating that they performed their prescribed exercise 89% of the time. No adverse events were reported.

WHAT’S NEW

First high-quality study to support evidence for early light activity

This is the first high-quality study of subsymptom threshold exercise for SRC. Its findings add to the growing body of evidence that early engagement in light aerobic activity that does not provoke symptoms (but not fully returning to sports activity) can aid in recovery from an SRC.

CAVEATS

Narrow study population limits application of findings

It is unclear if subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with more than 3 concussions were excluded from this study. Additionally, patients with comorbidities such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, or learning disorders were not included in this study, which limits the application of these findings. The generalizability of this study is limited in younger children, adults, those with increased cardiovascular risk, and in patients with concussions that are not sports related.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

More real-world studies needed to confirm benefit

The majority of adolescent athletes in this study completed the subsymptom threshold exercise in a monitored environment with trainers, heart rate monitors, and access to equipment, limiting the study’s generalizability. Additionally, physicians need to be familiar with the BCTT to assign heart rate goals and assess improvement. The study environment may be feasible for some but not others. Studies evaluating real-world settings with athletes self-monitoring for symptom threshold with stepwise evaluations are needed and may be more broadly applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 16-year-old girl with no chronic medical illness presents to your office with her parents after sustaining a head injury at a soccer game over the weekend. She collided with another player while attempting to head the ball. Immediately afterward, she was taken off the field and assessed. She was confused but had a normal level of consciousness and denied vision changes, weakness or tingling in her arms or legs, severe headache, or neck pain. Further testing revealed dizziness and abnormal balance. Her confusion and abnormal balance resolved after 1 day. She has had a mild headache and light sensitivity since the event. She otherwise feels well at rest in the office. She wants to recover quickly but safely and has heard conflicting statements about whether she should completely rest or start back to light activity now.

Sports-related concussions (SRCs) are highly prevalent in the United States, with as many as 3.8 million cases annually. Of those, 1.1 to 1.9 million cases are in children 18 years old or younger.^2,3 SRCs are defined by the Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) 2017 consensus statement as involving the following criteria: (1) direct or indirect trauma anywhere on the body with force transmitted to the head; (2) rapid or delayed symptom presentation, typically with spontaneous resolution; (3) functional rather than structural injury; and (4) occurrence with or without loss of consciousness with stepwise symptom resolution.⁴

SRCs do not have a proven, effective treatment and can have short- or long-term consequences. Initial treatment includes removing athletes from play immediately after an event. The American Academy of Neurology recommends that athletes not return to play until the concussion is resolved, as judged by a health care provider, and the athlete is asymptomatic when off medication.²

The CISG recommends a 6-step approach, with each step taking at least 24 hours.⁴ The final step is a return to normal activity.⁴ This working group recommended extensive study of rehabilitation programs involving subsymptom threshold exercise (ie, exercise performed at a level that does not exacerbate symptoms) before implementation as routine practice. Evidence from a 2015 study suggests that following strict rest for 5 days until complete symptom resolution may prolong recovery compared with rest for only 1 to 2 days.⁵ Additionally, strict rest did not show a difference in neurocognitive or balance outcomes in that study, and the authors noted it may also negatively impact academic, sports, and social function in adolescents.⁵ This study looked at the potential benefit of subsymptom threshold exercise during recovery from SRC.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Light aerobic exercise may help speed recovery

This multicenter, prospective, parallel, randomized clinical trial compared subsymptom threshold aerobic exercise to ­placebo-like stretching. Patients were included if they were ages 13 to 18 years and presented within 10 days of an SRC, as diagnosed using the CISG criteria. Exclusion criteria included focal neurologic deficits; history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury; inability to exercise due to orthopedic injury, cervical spine injury, diabetes, or heart disease; increased cardiac risk; or low postconcussion symptom severity. Patients with a diagnosis of and treatment with medication for ­attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, anxiety, or learning disorder were excluded, as were patients with a history of more than 3 previous concussions.

It’s unclear whether subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with > 3 concussions were excluded from this study.

Patients in the aerobic exercise group were instructed to use a stationary bike or treadmill (or equivalent walking or jogging if they did not have access to this equipment) at a prescribed heart rate. The target heart rate was 80% of the heart rate achieved during initial assessment with the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT).⁶ Patients in this group were instructed to exercise for 20 minutes or to the point at which their symptoms increased by 2 points (on a 10-point scale) from pre-exercise levels, whichever came first, with rest prescribed at all other times.

For the placebo-like group, a stretching instruction booklet was provided, with the goal of achieving a heart rate that was not significantly elevated. Participants in this group were told to perform the stretches for 20 minutes daily. Of note, researchers ensured the level of physician and research staff attention was similar for each patient, regardless of treatment group, to prevent intervention bias. Additionally, interventions were not initiated prior to 48 hours from the time of injury.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was number of days to recovery since the date of injury. This was defined as symptom resolution to normal (as evaluated by a physician blinded to the study group) and by the patient’s ability to exercise to exhaustion without symptom exacerbation on the BCTT. Secondary outcomes measured the proportion of patients with delayed recovery (defined as recovery requiring > 30 days) and daily symptom scores.

Of 165 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 52 patients were excluded prior to randomization (12 patients chose not to participate, 39 were excluded for lack of symptoms, and 1 withdrew due to severe symptoms on the BCTT). A total of 113 were randomized to either group, and 103 patients completed the study (10 patients did not complete the study or had another illness during the intervention). The study analysis included 52 patients in the aerobic exercise group and 51 in the placebo-like stretching group. The study was powered to detect a significant difference in recovery time.

Patients were about equally divided by sex, with a mean age of 15 years. Patients who had no previous concussion made up 50% of the aerobic group and 57% of the stretching group. The average time since injury was similar in the aerobic and stretching groups (4.9 days and 4.8 days, respectively). The aerobic exercise group recovered in a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-18.5 days) compared with a median of 17 days (IQR = 13-23 days) for the stretching group (P = .009). The incidence of delayed recovery (> 30 days) was higher in the stretching group (n = 7) compared with the aerobic exercise group (n = 2) but was not statistically significant. Daily symptom reporting occurred at a high rate in both groups, with patients stating that they performed their prescribed exercise 89% of the time. No adverse events were reported.

WHAT’S NEW

First high-quality study to support evidence for early light activity

This is the first high-quality study of subsymptom threshold exercise for SRC. Its findings add to the growing body of evidence that early engagement in light aerobic activity that does not provoke symptoms (but not fully returning to sports activity) can aid in recovery from an SRC.

CAVEATS

Narrow study population limits application of findings

It is unclear if subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with more than 3 concussions were excluded from this study. Additionally, patients with comorbidities such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, or learning disorders were not included in this study, which limits the application of these findings. The generalizability of this study is limited in younger children, adults, those with increased cardiovascular risk, and in patients with concussions that are not sports related.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

More real-world studies needed to confirm benefit

The majority of adolescent athletes in this study completed the subsymptom threshold exercise in a monitored environment with trainers, heart rate monitors, and access to equipment, limiting the study’s generalizability. Additionally, physicians need to be familiar with the BCTT to assign heart rate goals and assess improvement. The study environment may be feasible for some but not others. Studies evaluating real-world settings with athletes self-monitoring for symptom threshold with stepwise evaluations are needed and may be more broadly applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 16-year-old girl with no chronic medical illness presents to your office with her parents after sustaining a head injury at a soccer game over the weekend. She collided with another player while attempting to head the ball. Immediately afterward, she was taken off the field and assessed. She was confused but had a normal level of consciousness and denied vision changes, weakness or tingling in her arms or legs, severe headache, or neck pain. Further testing revealed dizziness and abnormal balance. Her confusion and abnormal balance resolved after 1 day. She has had a mild headache and light sensitivity since the event. She otherwise feels well at rest in the office. She wants to recover quickly but safely and has heard conflicting statements about whether she should completely rest or start back to light activity now.

Sports-related concussions (SRCs) are highly prevalent in the United States, with as many as 3.8 million cases annually. Of those, 1.1 to 1.9 million cases are in children 18 years old or younger.^2,3 SRCs are defined by the Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) 2017 consensus statement as involving the following criteria: (1) direct or indirect trauma anywhere on the body with force transmitted to the head; (2) rapid or delayed symptom presentation, typically with spontaneous resolution; (3) functional rather than structural injury; and (4) occurrence with or without loss of consciousness with stepwise symptom resolution.⁴

SRCs do not have a proven, effective treatment and can have short- or long-term consequences. Initial treatment includes removing athletes from play immediately after an event. The American Academy of Neurology recommends that athletes not return to play until the concussion is resolved, as judged by a health care provider, and the athlete is asymptomatic when off medication.²

The CISG recommends a 6-step approach, with each step taking at least 24 hours.⁴ The final step is a return to normal activity.⁴ This working group recommended extensive study of rehabilitation programs involving subsymptom threshold exercise (ie, exercise performed at a level that does not exacerbate symptoms) before implementation as routine practice. Evidence from a 2015 study suggests that following strict rest for 5 days until complete symptom resolution may prolong recovery compared with rest for only 1 to 2 days.⁵ Additionally, strict rest did not show a difference in neurocognitive or balance outcomes in that study, and the authors noted it may also negatively impact academic, sports, and social function in adolescents.⁵ This study looked at the potential benefit of subsymptom threshold exercise during recovery from SRC.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Light aerobic exercise may help speed recovery

This multicenter, prospective, parallel, randomized clinical trial compared subsymptom threshold aerobic exercise to ­placebo-like stretching. Patients were included if they were ages 13 to 18 years and presented within 10 days of an SRC, as diagnosed using the CISG criteria. Exclusion criteria included focal neurologic deficits; history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury; inability to exercise due to orthopedic injury, cervical spine injury, diabetes, or heart disease; increased cardiac risk; or low postconcussion symptom severity. Patients with a diagnosis of and treatment with medication for ­attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, anxiety, or learning disorder were excluded, as were patients with a history of more than 3 previous concussions.

It’s unclear whether subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with > 3 concussions were excluded from this study.

Patients in the aerobic exercise group were instructed to use a stationary bike or treadmill (or equivalent walking or jogging if they did not have access to this equipment) at a prescribed heart rate. The target heart rate was 80% of the heart rate achieved during initial assessment with the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT).⁶ Patients in this group were instructed to exercise for 20 minutes or to the point at which their symptoms increased by 2 points (on a 10-point scale) from pre-exercise levels, whichever came first, with rest prescribed at all other times.

For the placebo-like group, a stretching instruction booklet was provided, with the goal of achieving a heart rate that was not significantly elevated. Participants in this group were told to perform the stretches for 20 minutes daily. Of note, researchers ensured the level of physician and research staff attention was similar for each patient, regardless of treatment group, to prevent intervention bias. Additionally, interventions were not initiated prior to 48 hours from the time of injury.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was number of days to recovery since the date of injury. This was defined as symptom resolution to normal (as evaluated by a physician blinded to the study group) and by the patient’s ability to exercise to exhaustion without symptom exacerbation on the BCTT. Secondary outcomes measured the proportion of patients with delayed recovery (defined as recovery requiring > 30 days) and daily symptom scores.

Of 165 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 52 patients were excluded prior to randomization (12 patients chose not to participate, 39 were excluded for lack of symptoms, and 1 withdrew due to severe symptoms on the BCTT). A total of 113 were randomized to either group, and 103 patients completed the study (10 patients did not complete the study or had another illness during the intervention). The study analysis included 52 patients in the aerobic exercise group and 51 in the placebo-like stretching group. The study was powered to detect a significant difference in recovery time.

Patients were about equally divided by sex, with a mean age of 15 years. Patients who had no previous concussion made up 50% of the aerobic group and 57% of the stretching group. The average time since injury was similar in the aerobic and stretching groups (4.9 days and 4.8 days, respectively). The aerobic exercise group recovered in a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-18.5 days) compared with a median of 17 days (IQR = 13-23 days) for the stretching group (P = .009). The incidence of delayed recovery (> 30 days) was higher in the stretching group (n = 7) compared with the aerobic exercise group (n = 2) but was not statistically significant. Daily symptom reporting occurred at a high rate in both groups, with patients stating that they performed their prescribed exercise 89% of the time. No adverse events were reported.

WHAT’S NEW

First high-quality study to support evidence for early light activity

This is the first high-quality study of subsymptom threshold exercise for SRC. Its findings add to the growing body of evidence that early engagement in light aerobic activity that does not provoke symptoms (but not fully returning to sports activity) can aid in recovery from an SRC.

CAVEATS

Narrow study population limits application of findings

It is unclear if subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with more than 3 concussions were excluded from this study. Additionally, patients with comorbidities such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, or learning disorders were not included in this study, which limits the application of these findings. The generalizability of this study is limited in younger children, adults, those with increased cardiovascular risk, and in patients with concussions that are not sports related.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

More real-world studies needed to confirm benefit

The majority of adolescent athletes in this study completed the subsymptom threshold exercise in a monitored environment with trainers, heart rate monitors, and access to equipment, limiting the study’s generalizability. Additionally, physicians need to be familiar with the BCTT to assign heart rate goals and assess improvement. The study environment may be feasible for some but not others. Studies evaluating real-world settings with athletes self-monitoring for symptom threshold with stepwise evaluations are needed and may be more broadly applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and Z-hypnotics have been available for decades, yet uncertainties about their use remain. They are prescribed and overprescribed most often for anxiety and insomnia, for which they have value but also the potential for significant adverse consequences, notably physiologic dependence. Use of these agents should be limited, and planned deprescribing is a fundamental aspect of prescribing.

A brief history. BZDs are a subset of benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs), which enhance the inhibitory effect of centrally acting γ-amino butyric acid (GABA) at the GABA_A receptor through allosteric modulation. In 1960, the first BZD, chlordiazepoxide, was marketed for clinical use, and as other agents in the class became available, BZDs supplanted the more toxic barbiturates, another BZRA subset (TABLE 1). By the late 1970s, BZDs had risen to the top of most prescribed medications, with one agent in particular—diazepam (Valium)—earning a reputation as “mother’s little helper,” a phrase derived from a Rolling Stones' song with that title produced in 1966.¹

With recognition of the problems associated with BZDs, their popularity diminished somewhat but remained high. BZDs were listed under Schedule IV by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1975 due to the risk for addiction, and on the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria list in 1991 because of significant adverse consequences in the elderly. Researchers began to question their use as early as the 1970s, and the landmark Ashton Manual, guidance for patients and clinicians alike, was published in 2002.²

Currently, there are 14 BZDs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as 3 Z-hypnotics, termed such as they include the letter “z” in their generic names (TABLE 1). In recent years, BZD prescribing has risen; a 2019 study found that 1 of 8 American adults reported using a BZD in the previous year.³

Limited benefits of benzodiazepine receptor agonists

BZRAs can be of benefit in a limited range of medical conditions, including some for which they are first-line considerations. (See TABLE 2 for a list of indications for BZDs.) They are most often prescribed for anxiety and insomnia, although they are not first-line treatments for these conditions and should be prescribed only when symptoms limit a patient’s daily functioning.

BZRAs are not intended for long-term use. In recent decades, the percentage of patients prescribed BZRAs has doubled, and more than 80% of these patients indicate usage for more than 6 months.⁴ Evidence, however, does not support long-term daily use.

Observation periods in most studies are far shorter than the number of years over which BZDs are actually prescribed, and flawed research methodology has introduced the risk of bias. Specifically, the generalizability of reported outcomes must be qualified, since efficacy trials performed under ideal study conditions (eg, exclusion criteria to minimize confounders) differ from circumstances seen in clinical practice. Conclusions are also limited by the inherent bias of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and unavailability of unpublished trials that may have demonstrated unfavorable results.

Continue to: Insomnia

Insomnia, a current (past 30 days) complaint in more than 40% of US adults, is associated with a variety of symptoms.⁵ About 20% of adults have an insomnia disorder, defined as a predominant problem for at least 1 month involving sleep initiation, maintenance, or nonrestorative sleep along with daytime function-limiting fatigue.⁵ Meta-­analyses indicate BZRAs can reduce sleep latency (BZDs, by 4 minutes; Z-hypnotics, 22 minutes) and may increase sleep duration (BZDs, 62 minutes per limited data; Z-hypnotics, data insufficient).^6,7 Definitive evidence for long-term (> 2-4 weeks) BZD benefit is lacking, and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is well established as first-line treatment yielding improvements that may last at least 18 months after completion of therapy. ^8,9

Although CBT-I is generally provided by behavioral health specialists, elements of CBT-I and sleep hygiene measures can be effectively used by primary care clinicians.¹⁰ Data indicate other nonpharmacologic interventions are also effective,¹¹ including acceptance and commitment therapy,¹² meditation,¹³ and acupuncture.¹⁴

Episodic fear and anxiety are universal and essential for survival. Fear is an alarm warning of an immediate hazard. Anxiety (the emotion) paired with worry (the thought) relate to a perceived future threat. Transient (state) anxiety should not be suppressed altogether if self-management can curb its intensity and thereby allow effective problem engagement. However, when individuals are incapacitated by crisis anxiety or sporadic specific phobias such as flight anxiety, episodic BZDs do have a role.

Ongoing anxiety is a more complex treatment situation. Obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder are no longer categorized as anxiety disorders, but they often involve anxiety. Here, BZDs have no indication aside from exceptional acute crisis presentations. Anxiety disorders are defined by a core persistent (trait) anxiety disproportionate to the actual threat, limited daily functioning, and more than 6 months’ duration. One of 3 Americans older than 13 years meet the criteria for anxiety in their lifetime; 1 of 5 meet the criteria in any single year.¹⁵

BZDs are effective in treating anxiety disorders in the short term (2-4 weeks)^2,16,17; however, benefit may fade over time.^18-21 For some individuals, data suggest BZDs themselves might actually generate anxiety, as evidenced by reduced symptom intensity following discontinuation.^22,23 Recommended first-line medications for anxiety disorders include certain antidepressants and pregabalin, which exhibit efficacy similar to that of BZDs.²⁴ Mindfulness and various psychotherapies have value, as well.¹⁶ Among the latter, CBT is considered first line with benefit comparable to BZDs in the short term; yet unlike BZDs, CBT gains can last 12 months or longer after the conclusion of therapy. ^25,26 Because there may be a delay between the start of CBT and the onset of benefit, BZDs, which work quickly, may be used to bridge functionally impaired patients in the short term.

Continue to: Risks with benzodiazepine receptor agonists

Risks with benzodiazepine receptor agonists

Harms from BZRA use are common, tempering their utility. Sedation, dyscognition, and psychomotor impairments are often seen upon initiation of BZRA use. These adverse effects can—although not always—improve with continuous BZRA exposure, an effect known as tolerance, which is due to neuropharmacologic adaptation. 

Cognitive issues include problems with memory, judgment, and decision making. These may be unrecognized or, if noted, attributed to other issues such as aging, and may become clear only when BZRAs are discontinued. Anterograde amnesia and parasomnias occur less often.

Psychomotor impairment can result in falls, fractures, and other injuries, especially in the elderly. Decrements in mood, including emergent depression and paradoxical anxiety, can occur. Some individuals experience disinhibition that is expressed through irritability, agitation, aggression, and violence.

Misuse of BZRAs is not unusual and can be related to dosing errors or attempts to ease intrusive symptoms. Nonmedical use almost always occurs in the context of an underlying use disorder, whereby BZRAs serve to amplify euphoria or ameliorate withdrawal from opioids or alcohol. Addiction per se, which entails BZRA craving and compulsive use leading to adverse consequences, is unusual.

BZRAs are associated with increased mortality, including all-cause mortality and suicide. They are respiratory depressants, although when taken alone in excess rarely result in death. They are, however, strongly implicated in opioid-related overdose fatalities, as their presence has been identified in 1 of 3 such decedents.²⁷

Continue to: Physiologic dependence with BZRAs

Among the more important adverse outcomes with ongoing BZRA exposure is physiologic dependence. This occurs primarily because of neuroadaptation of GABA_A and glutaminergic receptors, but dependence probably also involves changes in the adenosine A_2A, serotonergic, and peripheral benzodiazepine receptors, the latter being present on mitochondrial membranes. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis also appears to be involved.

Physiologic dependence is expressed through BZRA tolerance and characteristic physical and psychological symptoms upon withdrawal. Tolerance refers to a reduced effect with continued substance exposure or the need for an increased dose to get the same effect. Drug withdrawal can result in manifestations distinctive to addiction-prone substances, as well as to some medications without addiction liability, such as corticosteroids and antidepressants. Tolerance and withdrawal are not applicable criteria in the diagnosis of sedative-hypnotic use disorder when BZRAs are prescribed.²⁸

Withdrawal. Reported prevalence of BZRA physiologic dependence differs according to populations studied, criteria used, and the deprescribing process employed. Some researchers have found rates of one-third and others exceeding one-half among individuals using BZRAs for longer than a month.^23,29Physiologic dependence has also been seen in those exposed for as little as 1 week and at usual or even low dosages.^30,31 Moderate-to-severe withdrawal symptoms occur in 10% to 44% of BZRA users, and an estimated 10% to 15% have protracted (months, years, indefinite) symptoms that may fluctuate unpredictably and seem peculiar, bizarre, or unrelated to BZRA neuropharmacology.^2,32,33 The extent and severity of withdrawal can be striking, as highlighted in qualitative research of individuals seeking support and assistance in online communities.³⁴

Deprescribing BZRAs

Because benefits are limited and adverse outcomes including physiologic dependence are common, it is recommended that clinicians urge deprescribing of BZRAs for any patient taking them consistently for more than 1 month. Published deprescribing investigations and guidance are insufficient, heterogenous, and confusing. Still, some approaches can work well, and success rates as high as 80% have been achieved among the elderly, for example.³⁵ Brief interventions such as providing individualized advice, support, and management are effective.^36,37 Abrupt discontinuation is inappropriate and can be life threatening.³⁸ Forced cessation is also inappropriate unless significant respiratory depression is identified.

Physiologic dependence with benzodiazepine receptor agonists has been seen in those exposed for as little as 1 week and at usual or even low dosages.

The Ashton Manual is a useful guide, readable by patients. Proceed with tapering slowly at a rate led by the patient’s response.^2,39 Avoid discrediting patients’ reports of unusual withdrawal symptoms, as this can lead to misdiagnosis (eg, somatic symptom disorder) or ineffective treatment (eg, addiction recovery approaches). Adding CBT to tapering improves outcomes, and adjunctive medications may be helpful, although not without their own problems.²⁹ Consistent support of patients by others involved in treatment (prescriber, pharmacist, behavioral health specialists, peer coach, significant others) is essential. Complex challenges generally resolve through authentic listening and response but may require referral to others with necessary skills and experience. Complete cessation may take 12 to 18 months (or longer). Even if complete cessation is not possible, the least dose necessary can be achieved.

CORRESPONDENCE
Steven Wright, MD, 1975 Ashland Mine Road, Ashland, OR 97520; [email protected]

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and Z-hypnotics have been available for decades, yet uncertainties about their use remain. They are prescribed and overprescribed most often for anxiety and insomnia, for which they have value but also the potential for significant adverse consequences, notably physiologic dependence. Use of these agents should be limited, and planned deprescribing is a fundamental aspect of prescribing.

A brief history. BZDs are a subset of benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs), which enhance the inhibitory effect of centrally acting γ-amino butyric acid (GABA) at the GABA_A receptor through allosteric modulation. In 1960, the first BZD, chlordiazepoxide, was marketed for clinical use, and as other agents in the class became available, BZDs supplanted the more toxic barbiturates, another BZRA subset (TABLE 1). By the late 1970s, BZDs had risen to the top of most prescribed medications, with one agent in particular—diazepam (Valium)—earning a reputation as “mother’s little helper,” a phrase derived from a Rolling Stones' song with that title produced in 1966.¹

With recognition of the problems associated with BZDs, their popularity diminished somewhat but remained high. BZDs were listed under Schedule IV by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1975 due to the risk for addiction, and on the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria list in 1991 because of significant adverse consequences in the elderly. Researchers began to question their use as early as the 1970s, and the landmark Ashton Manual, guidance for patients and clinicians alike, was published in 2002.²

Currently, there are 14 BZDs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as 3 Z-hypnotics, termed such as they include the letter “z” in their generic names (TABLE 1). In recent years, BZD prescribing has risen; a 2019 study found that 1 of 8 American adults reported using a BZD in the previous year.³

Limited benefits of benzodiazepine receptor agonists

BZRAs can be of benefit in a limited range of medical conditions, including some for which they are first-line considerations. (See TABLE 2 for a list of indications for BZDs.) They are most often prescribed for anxiety and insomnia, although they are not first-line treatments for these conditions and should be prescribed only when symptoms limit a patient’s daily functioning.

BZRAs are not intended for long-term use. In recent decades, the percentage of patients prescribed BZRAs has doubled, and more than 80% of these patients indicate usage for more than 6 months.⁴ Evidence, however, does not support long-term daily use.

Observation periods in most studies are far shorter than the number of years over which BZDs are actually prescribed, and flawed research methodology has introduced the risk of bias. Specifically, the generalizability of reported outcomes must be qualified, since efficacy trials performed under ideal study conditions (eg, exclusion criteria to minimize confounders) differ from circumstances seen in clinical practice. Conclusions are also limited by the inherent bias of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and unavailability of unpublished trials that may have demonstrated unfavorable results.

Continue to: Insomnia

Insomnia, a current (past 30 days) complaint in more than 40% of US adults, is associated with a variety of symptoms.⁵ About 20% of adults have an insomnia disorder, defined as a predominant problem for at least 1 month involving sleep initiation, maintenance, or nonrestorative sleep along with daytime function-limiting fatigue.⁵ Meta-­analyses indicate BZRAs can reduce sleep latency (BZDs, by 4 minutes; Z-hypnotics, 22 minutes) and may increase sleep duration (BZDs, 62 minutes per limited data; Z-hypnotics, data insufficient).^6,7 Definitive evidence for long-term (> 2-4 weeks) BZD benefit is lacking, and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is well established as first-line treatment yielding improvements that may last at least 18 months after completion of therapy. ^8,9

Although CBT-I is generally provided by behavioral health specialists, elements of CBT-I and sleep hygiene measures can be effectively used by primary care clinicians.¹⁰ Data indicate other nonpharmacologic interventions are also effective,¹¹ including acceptance and commitment therapy,¹² meditation,¹³ and acupuncture.¹⁴

Episodic fear and anxiety are universal and essential for survival. Fear is an alarm warning of an immediate hazard. Anxiety (the emotion) paired with worry (the thought) relate to a perceived future threat. Transient (state) anxiety should not be suppressed altogether if self-management can curb its intensity and thereby allow effective problem engagement. However, when individuals are incapacitated by crisis anxiety or sporadic specific phobias such as flight anxiety, episodic BZDs do have a role.

Ongoing anxiety is a more complex treatment situation. Obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder are no longer categorized as anxiety disorders, but they often involve anxiety. Here, BZDs have no indication aside from exceptional acute crisis presentations. Anxiety disorders are defined by a core persistent (trait) anxiety disproportionate to the actual threat, limited daily functioning, and more than 6 months’ duration. One of 3 Americans older than 13 years meet the criteria for anxiety in their lifetime; 1 of 5 meet the criteria in any single year.¹⁵

BZDs are effective in treating anxiety disorders in the short term (2-4 weeks)^2,16,17; however, benefit may fade over time.^18-21 For some individuals, data suggest BZDs themselves might actually generate anxiety, as evidenced by reduced symptom intensity following discontinuation.^22,23 Recommended first-line medications for anxiety disorders include certain antidepressants and pregabalin, which exhibit efficacy similar to that of BZDs.²⁴ Mindfulness and various psychotherapies have value, as well.¹⁶ Among the latter, CBT is considered first line with benefit comparable to BZDs in the short term; yet unlike BZDs, CBT gains can last 12 months or longer after the conclusion of therapy. ^25,26 Because there may be a delay between the start of CBT and the onset of benefit, BZDs, which work quickly, may be used to bridge functionally impaired patients in the short term.

Continue to: Risks with benzodiazepine receptor agonists

Risks with benzodiazepine receptor agonists

Harms from BZRA use are common, tempering their utility. Sedation, dyscognition, and psychomotor impairments are often seen upon initiation of BZRA use. These adverse effects can—although not always—improve with continuous BZRA exposure, an effect known as tolerance, which is due to neuropharmacologic adaptation. 

Cognitive issues include problems with memory, judgment, and decision making. These may be unrecognized or, if noted, attributed to other issues such as aging, and may become clear only when BZRAs are discontinued. Anterograde amnesia and parasomnias occur less often.

Psychomotor impairment can result in falls, fractures, and other injuries, especially in the elderly. Decrements in mood, including emergent depression and paradoxical anxiety, can occur. Some individuals experience disinhibition that is expressed through irritability, agitation, aggression, and violence.

Misuse of BZRAs is not unusual and can be related to dosing errors or attempts to ease intrusive symptoms. Nonmedical use almost always occurs in the context of an underlying use disorder, whereby BZRAs serve to amplify euphoria or ameliorate withdrawal from opioids or alcohol. Addiction per se, which entails BZRA craving and compulsive use leading to adverse consequences, is unusual.

BZRAs are associated with increased mortality, including all-cause mortality and suicide. They are respiratory depressants, although when taken alone in excess rarely result in death. They are, however, strongly implicated in opioid-related overdose fatalities, as their presence has been identified in 1 of 3 such decedents.²⁷

Continue to: Physiologic dependence with BZRAs

Among the more important adverse outcomes with ongoing BZRA exposure is physiologic dependence. This occurs primarily because of neuroadaptation of GABA_A and glutaminergic receptors, but dependence probably also involves changes in the adenosine A_2A, serotonergic, and peripheral benzodiazepine receptors, the latter being present on mitochondrial membranes. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis also appears to be involved.

Physiologic dependence is expressed through BZRA tolerance and characteristic physical and psychological symptoms upon withdrawal. Tolerance refers to a reduced effect with continued substance exposure or the need for an increased dose to get the same effect. Drug withdrawal can result in manifestations distinctive to addiction-prone substances, as well as to some medications without addiction liability, such as corticosteroids and antidepressants. Tolerance and withdrawal are not applicable criteria in the diagnosis of sedative-hypnotic use disorder when BZRAs are prescribed.²⁸

Withdrawal. Reported prevalence of BZRA physiologic dependence differs according to populations studied, criteria used, and the deprescribing process employed. Some researchers have found rates of one-third and others exceeding one-half among individuals using BZRAs for longer than a month.^23,29Physiologic dependence has also been seen in those exposed for as little as 1 week and at usual or even low dosages.^30,31 Moderate-to-severe withdrawal symptoms occur in 10% to 44% of BZRA users, and an estimated 10% to 15% have protracted (months, years, indefinite) symptoms that may fluctuate unpredictably and seem peculiar, bizarre, or unrelated to BZRA neuropharmacology.^2,32,33 The extent and severity of withdrawal can be striking, as highlighted in qualitative research of individuals seeking support and assistance in online communities.³⁴

Deprescribing BZRAs

Because benefits are limited and adverse outcomes including physiologic dependence are common, it is recommended that clinicians urge deprescribing of BZRAs for any patient taking them consistently for more than 1 month. Published deprescribing investigations and guidance are insufficient, heterogenous, and confusing. Still, some approaches can work well, and success rates as high as 80% have been achieved among the elderly, for example.³⁵ Brief interventions such as providing individualized advice, support, and management are effective.^36,37 Abrupt discontinuation is inappropriate and can be life threatening.³⁸ Forced cessation is also inappropriate unless significant respiratory depression is identified.

Physiologic dependence with benzodiazepine receptor agonists has been seen in those exposed for as little as 1 week and at usual or even low dosages.

The Ashton Manual is a useful guide, readable by patients. Proceed with tapering slowly at a rate led by the patient’s response.^2,39 Avoid discrediting patients’ reports of unusual withdrawal symptoms, as this can lead to misdiagnosis (eg, somatic symptom disorder) or ineffective treatment (eg, addiction recovery approaches). Adding CBT to tapering improves outcomes, and adjunctive medications may be helpful, although not without their own problems.²⁹ Consistent support of patients by others involved in treatment (prescriber, pharmacist, behavioral health specialists, peer coach, significant others) is essential. Complex challenges generally resolve through authentic listening and response but may require referral to others with necessary skills and experience. Complete cessation may take 12 to 18 months (or longer). Even if complete cessation is not possible, the least dose necessary can be achieved.

CORRESPONDENCE
Steven Wright, MD, 1975 Ashland Mine Road, Ashland, OR 97520; [email protected]

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and Z-hypnotics have been available for decades, yet uncertainties about their use remain. They are prescribed and overprescribed most often for anxiety and insomnia, for which they have value but also the potential for significant adverse consequences, notably physiologic dependence. Use of these agents should be limited, and planned deprescribing is a fundamental aspect of prescribing.

A brief history. BZDs are a subset of benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs), which enhance the inhibitory effect of centrally acting γ-amino butyric acid (GABA) at the GABA_A receptor through allosteric modulation. In 1960, the first BZD, chlordiazepoxide, was marketed for clinical use, and as other agents in the class became available, BZDs supplanted the more toxic barbiturates, another BZRA subset (TABLE 1). By the late 1970s, BZDs had risen to the top of most prescribed medications, with one agent in particular—diazepam (Valium)—earning a reputation as “mother’s little helper,” a phrase derived from a Rolling Stones' song with that title produced in 1966.¹

With recognition of the problems associated with BZDs, their popularity diminished somewhat but remained high. BZDs were listed under Schedule IV by the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1975 due to the risk for addiction, and on the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria list in 1991 because of significant adverse consequences in the elderly. Researchers began to question their use as early as the 1970s, and the landmark Ashton Manual, guidance for patients and clinicians alike, was published in 2002.²

Currently, there are 14 BZDs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as 3 Z-hypnotics, termed such as they include the letter “z” in their generic names (TABLE 1). In recent years, BZD prescribing has risen; a 2019 study found that 1 of 8 American adults reported using a BZD in the previous year.³

Limited benefits of benzodiazepine receptor agonists

BZRAs can be of benefit in a limited range of medical conditions, including some for which they are first-line considerations. (See TABLE 2 for a list of indications for BZDs.) They are most often prescribed for anxiety and insomnia, although they are not first-line treatments for these conditions and should be prescribed only when symptoms limit a patient’s daily functioning.

BZRAs are not intended for long-term use. In recent decades, the percentage of patients prescribed BZRAs has doubled, and more than 80% of these patients indicate usage for more than 6 months.⁴ Evidence, however, does not support long-term daily use.

Observation periods in most studies are far shorter than the number of years over which BZDs are actually prescribed, and flawed research methodology has introduced the risk of bias. Specifically, the generalizability of reported outcomes must be qualified, since efficacy trials performed under ideal study conditions (eg, exclusion criteria to minimize confounders) differ from circumstances seen in clinical practice. Conclusions are also limited by the inherent bias of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and unavailability of unpublished trials that may have demonstrated unfavorable results.

Continue to: Insomnia

Insomnia, a current (past 30 days) complaint in more than 40% of US adults, is associated with a variety of symptoms.⁵ About 20% of adults have an insomnia disorder, defined as a predominant problem for at least 1 month involving sleep initiation, maintenance, or nonrestorative sleep along with daytime function-limiting fatigue.⁵ Meta-­analyses indicate BZRAs can reduce sleep latency (BZDs, by 4 minutes; Z-hypnotics, 22 minutes) and may increase sleep duration (BZDs, 62 minutes per limited data; Z-hypnotics, data insufficient).^6,7 Definitive evidence for long-term (> 2-4 weeks) BZD benefit is lacking, and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is well established as first-line treatment yielding improvements that may last at least 18 months after completion of therapy. ^8,9

Although CBT-I is generally provided by behavioral health specialists, elements of CBT-I and sleep hygiene measures can be effectively used by primary care clinicians.¹⁰ Data indicate other nonpharmacologic interventions are also effective,¹¹ including acceptance and commitment therapy,¹² meditation,¹³ and acupuncture.¹⁴

Episodic fear and anxiety are universal and essential for survival. Fear is an alarm warning of an immediate hazard. Anxiety (the emotion) paired with worry (the thought) relate to a perceived future threat. Transient (state) anxiety should not be suppressed altogether if self-management can curb its intensity and thereby allow effective problem engagement. However, when individuals are incapacitated by crisis anxiety or sporadic specific phobias such as flight anxiety, episodic BZDs do have a role.

Ongoing anxiety is a more complex treatment situation. Obsessive-compulsive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder are no longer categorized as anxiety disorders, but they often involve anxiety. Here, BZDs have no indication aside from exceptional acute crisis presentations. Anxiety disorders are defined by a core persistent (trait) anxiety disproportionate to the actual threat, limited daily functioning, and more than 6 months’ duration. One of 3 Americans older than 13 years meet the criteria for anxiety in their lifetime; 1 of 5 meet the criteria in any single year.¹⁵

BZDs are effective in treating anxiety disorders in the short term (2-4 weeks)^2,16,17; however, benefit may fade over time.^18-21 For some individuals, data suggest BZDs themselves might actually generate anxiety, as evidenced by reduced symptom intensity following discontinuation.^22,23 Recommended first-line medications for anxiety disorders include certain antidepressants and pregabalin, which exhibit efficacy similar to that of BZDs.²⁴ Mindfulness and various psychotherapies have value, as well.¹⁶ Among the latter, CBT is considered first line with benefit comparable to BZDs in the short term; yet unlike BZDs, CBT gains can last 12 months or longer after the conclusion of therapy. ^25,26 Because there may be a delay between the start of CBT and the onset of benefit, BZDs, which work quickly, may be used to bridge functionally impaired patients in the short term.

Continue to: Risks with benzodiazepine receptor agonists

Risks with benzodiazepine receptor agonists

Harms from BZRA use are common, tempering their utility. Sedation, dyscognition, and psychomotor impairments are often seen upon initiation of BZRA use. These adverse effects can—although not always—improve with continuous BZRA exposure, an effect known as tolerance, which is due to neuropharmacologic adaptation. 

Cognitive issues include problems with memory, judgment, and decision making. These may be unrecognized or, if noted, attributed to other issues such as aging, and may become clear only when BZRAs are discontinued. Anterograde amnesia and parasomnias occur less often.

Psychomotor impairment can result in falls, fractures, and other injuries, especially in the elderly. Decrements in mood, including emergent depression and paradoxical anxiety, can occur. Some individuals experience disinhibition that is expressed through irritability, agitation, aggression, and violence.

Misuse of BZRAs is not unusual and can be related to dosing errors or attempts to ease intrusive symptoms. Nonmedical use almost always occurs in the context of an underlying use disorder, whereby BZRAs serve to amplify euphoria or ameliorate withdrawal from opioids or alcohol. Addiction per se, which entails BZRA craving and compulsive use leading to adverse consequences, is unusual.

BZRAs are associated with increased mortality, including all-cause mortality and suicide. They are respiratory depressants, although when taken alone in excess rarely result in death. They are, however, strongly implicated in opioid-related overdose fatalities, as their presence has been identified in 1 of 3 such decedents.²⁷

Continue to: Physiologic dependence with BZRAs

Among the more important adverse outcomes with ongoing BZRA exposure is physiologic dependence. This occurs primarily because of neuroadaptation of GABA_A and glutaminergic receptors, but dependence probably also involves changes in the adenosine A_2A, serotonergic, and peripheral benzodiazepine receptors, the latter being present on mitochondrial membranes. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis also appears to be involved.

Physiologic dependence is expressed through BZRA tolerance and characteristic physical and psychological symptoms upon withdrawal. Tolerance refers to a reduced effect with continued substance exposure or the need for an increased dose to get the same effect. Drug withdrawal can result in manifestations distinctive to addiction-prone substances, as well as to some medications without addiction liability, such as corticosteroids and antidepressants. Tolerance and withdrawal are not applicable criteria in the diagnosis of sedative-hypnotic use disorder when BZRAs are prescribed.²⁸

Withdrawal. Reported prevalence of BZRA physiologic dependence differs according to populations studied, criteria used, and the deprescribing process employed. Some researchers have found rates of one-third and others exceeding one-half among individuals using BZRAs for longer than a month.^23,29Physiologic dependence has also been seen in those exposed for as little as 1 week and at usual or even low dosages.^30,31 Moderate-to-severe withdrawal symptoms occur in 10% to 44% of BZRA users, and an estimated 10% to 15% have protracted (months, years, indefinite) symptoms that may fluctuate unpredictably and seem peculiar, bizarre, or unrelated to BZRA neuropharmacology.^2,32,33 The extent and severity of withdrawal can be striking, as highlighted in qualitative research of individuals seeking support and assistance in online communities.³⁴

Deprescribing BZRAs

Because benefits are limited and adverse outcomes including physiologic dependence are common, it is recommended that clinicians urge deprescribing of BZRAs for any patient taking them consistently for more than 1 month. Published deprescribing investigations and guidance are insufficient, heterogenous, and confusing. Still, some approaches can work well, and success rates as high as 80% have been achieved among the elderly, for example.³⁵ Brief interventions such as providing individualized advice, support, and management are effective.^36,37 Abrupt discontinuation is inappropriate and can be life threatening.³⁸ Forced cessation is also inappropriate unless significant respiratory depression is identified.

Physiologic dependence with benzodiazepine receptor agonists has been seen in those exposed for as little as 1 week and at usual or even low dosages.

The Ashton Manual is a useful guide, readable by patients. Proceed with tapering slowly at a rate led by the patient’s response.^2,39 Avoid discrediting patients’ reports of unusual withdrawal symptoms, as this can lead to misdiagnosis (eg, somatic symptom disorder) or ineffective treatment (eg, addiction recovery approaches). Adding CBT to tapering improves outcomes, and adjunctive medications may be helpful, although not without their own problems.²⁹ Consistent support of patients by others involved in treatment (prescriber, pharmacist, behavioral health specialists, peer coach, significant others) is essential. Complex challenges generally resolve through authentic listening and response but may require referral to others with necessary skills and experience. Complete cessation may take 12 to 18 months (or longer). Even if complete cessation is not possible, the least dose necessary can be achieved.

CORRESPONDENCE
Steven Wright, MD, 1975 Ashland Mine Road, Ashland, OR 97520; [email protected]

Evidence summary

Bicarbonate therapy demonstrates benefit in 2 meta-analyses

Two recent meta-analyses evaluated studies of bicarbonate therapy in patients with CKD, and both found benefit.^1,2

A 2020 meta-analysis included 15 RCTs (N = 2445) of adults (mean age, 61 years; range, 40.5-73.9 years) with CKD.¹ Most trials enrolled patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²; however, 1 study (N = 80) enrolled patients who had an eGFR of 60 to 90 mL/min/1.73 m² and albuminuria, and another (N = 74) enrolled patients with an eGFR of 15 to 89 mL/min/1.73 m². Four studies included patients with normal baseline bicarbonate levels, while the rest enrolled patients with metabolic acidosis. The primary outcome was CKD progression at study conclusion, which ranged from 3 to 60 months (median, 12 months).

Compared to placebo or no therapy, sodium bicarbonate (variously dosed) resulted in a small reduction in the rate of loss of kidney function (defined by eGFR or creatinine clearance) from baseline to trial completion (14 trials, N = 2073; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.40; P = .018; I² = 50%).¹Sodium bicarbonate therapy also resulted in a moderate reduction in the risk of end-stage renal disease (7 trials, N = 1526; risk ratio [RR] = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.89; P = .011; I² = 69%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 14).¹ There was no difference in hospitalizations for heart failure, risk of worsening blood pressure, or all-cause mortality between the sodium bicarbonate and control groups.

Subgroup analysis by follow-up time found a significant preservation of eGFR only in studies with follow-up > 12 months (4 trials, N = 392; weighted mean difference = 3.71 mL/min/1.73 m²; 95% CI, 0.18-7.24; P = .042; I² = 63%).¹ Duration of therapy did not affect initiation of dialysis. Another subgroup analysis found that low- and moderate-quality studies were more likely than high-quality studies to find a change in the primary outcome. Overall, there was significant heterogeneity among the trials (control intervention, follow-up duration, methods of assessment of kidney function, dosage of sodium bicarbonate), as well as underrepresentation of female, pediatric, and elderly patients.

Another meta-analysis, published in 2019 by a different research group, analyzed 7 RCTs (N = 815) that comprised a subset of those in the newer analysis.² The 2019 analysis similarly found that, compared to placebo or usual care, oral bicarbonate therapy resulted in statistically significantly higher eGFRs at 3 to 60 months’ follow-up (mean difference = 3.1 mL/min/1.73 m²; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9).² The authors noted that the protective effect on eGFR was not seen in studies reporting outcomes at 1 year. Progression to end-stage renal disease or initiation of dialysis were not used as outcomes.

Significant outcomes seen in 1 large study

The largest study (N = 740) included in the 2020 meta-analysis (and discussed separately due to its size and duration) was a multicenter, unblinded, pragmatic trial investigating bicarbonate therapy in CKD.³ Patients were adults (mean age, 67.8 years) with CKD stages 3 to 5 and metabolic acidosis (serum bicarbonate level of 18-24 mmol/L); mean serum creatinine was 2.3 mg/dL, and mean serum bicarbonate was 21.5 mmol/L. Patients with severe heart failure or uncontrolled hypertension were excluded.

Compared to placebo or no therapy, sodium bicarbonate (variously dosed) resulted in a small reduction in the rate of loss of kidney function.

Researchers randomized patients to oral sodium bicarbonate (titrated to a target serum concentration of 24-28 mmol/L) or standard care for a median duration of 30 months. The primary endpoint was time to doubling of serum creatinine, and secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, time to initiation of dialysis, hospitalization rate, and hospital length of stay.

Continue to: Patients treated with...

Patients treated with bicarbonate therapy had a 64% lower risk of doubling their serum creatinine compared to those treated with standard care (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58; P < .001; NNT = 9.6).³ Bicarbonate therapy also significantly reduced the risk of dialysis (HR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81; P = .005; NNT = 19); all-cause mortality (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; P = .01; NNT = 27); hospitalization rates (34.6% vs 14.2% by end of study in standard care and bicarbonate groups, respectively; P < .001); and hospital length of stay (1160 total d/y vs 400 total d/y; P < .0001).³ Inspection of Kaplan Meier curves shows outcomes beginning to diverge after 1 to 2 years of treatment. This trial was limited by the lack of blinding, placebo control, and standardization of care protocols.

Recommendations from others

The National Kidney Foundation’s 2012 Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines for the management of CKD recommend oral bicarbonate therapy for patients with CKD and serum bicarbonate concentrations < 22 mmol/L.⁴ The guidelines state that serum bicarbonate levels < 22 mmol/L correlate with an increased risk of CKD progression and death, whereas high bicarbonate levels (> 32 mmol/L) correlate with increased risk of death independent of level of kidney function. These guidelines cite small studies of alkali therapy slowing progression of CKD, although it was noted that the evidence base was not strong.

Editor’s takeaway

The evidence shows a small but consistent effect of bicarbonate therapy on CKD progression. For patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 and metabolic acidosis (defined by serum bicarbonate levels < 22 mmol/L), the use of supplemental oral sodium bicarbonate, which is inexpensive and safe, can delay or prevent progression of serious disease.

Evidence summary

Bicarbonate therapy demonstrates benefit in 2 meta-analyses

Two recent meta-analyses evaluated studies of bicarbonate therapy in patients with CKD, and both found benefit.^1,2

A 2020 meta-analysis included 15 RCTs (N = 2445) of adults (mean age, 61 years; range, 40.5-73.9 years) with CKD.¹ Most trials enrolled patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²; however, 1 study (N = 80) enrolled patients who had an eGFR of 60 to 90 mL/min/1.73 m² and albuminuria, and another (N = 74) enrolled patients with an eGFR of 15 to 89 mL/min/1.73 m². Four studies included patients with normal baseline bicarbonate levels, while the rest enrolled patients with metabolic acidosis. The primary outcome was CKD progression at study conclusion, which ranged from 3 to 60 months (median, 12 months).

Compared to placebo or no therapy, sodium bicarbonate (variously dosed) resulted in a small reduction in the rate of loss of kidney function (defined by eGFR or creatinine clearance) from baseline to trial completion (14 trials, N = 2073; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.40; P = .018; I² = 50%).¹Sodium bicarbonate therapy also resulted in a moderate reduction in the risk of end-stage renal disease (7 trials, N = 1526; risk ratio [RR] = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.89; P = .011; I² = 69%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 14).¹ There was no difference in hospitalizations for heart failure, risk of worsening blood pressure, or all-cause mortality between the sodium bicarbonate and control groups.

Subgroup analysis by follow-up time found a significant preservation of eGFR only in studies with follow-up > 12 months (4 trials, N = 392; weighted mean difference = 3.71 mL/min/1.73 m²; 95% CI, 0.18-7.24; P = .042; I² = 63%).¹ Duration of therapy did not affect initiation of dialysis. Another subgroup analysis found that low- and moderate-quality studies were more likely than high-quality studies to find a change in the primary outcome. Overall, there was significant heterogeneity among the trials (control intervention, follow-up duration, methods of assessment of kidney function, dosage of sodium bicarbonate), as well as underrepresentation of female, pediatric, and elderly patients.

Another meta-analysis, published in 2019 by a different research group, analyzed 7 RCTs (N = 815) that comprised a subset of those in the newer analysis.² The 2019 analysis similarly found that, compared to placebo or usual care, oral bicarbonate therapy resulted in statistically significantly higher eGFRs at 3 to 60 months’ follow-up (mean difference = 3.1 mL/min/1.73 m²; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9).² The authors noted that the protective effect on eGFR was not seen in studies reporting outcomes at 1 year. Progression to end-stage renal disease or initiation of dialysis were not used as outcomes.

Significant outcomes seen in 1 large study

The largest study (N = 740) included in the 2020 meta-analysis (and discussed separately due to its size and duration) was a multicenter, unblinded, pragmatic trial investigating bicarbonate therapy in CKD.³ Patients were adults (mean age, 67.8 years) with CKD stages 3 to 5 and metabolic acidosis (serum bicarbonate level of 18-24 mmol/L); mean serum creatinine was 2.3 mg/dL, and mean serum bicarbonate was 21.5 mmol/L. Patients with severe heart failure or uncontrolled hypertension were excluded.

Compared to placebo or no therapy, sodium bicarbonate (variously dosed) resulted in a small reduction in the rate of loss of kidney function.

Researchers randomized patients to oral sodium bicarbonate (titrated to a target serum concentration of 24-28 mmol/L) or standard care for a median duration of 30 months. The primary endpoint was time to doubling of serum creatinine, and secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, time to initiation of dialysis, hospitalization rate, and hospital length of stay.

Continue to: Patients treated with...

Patients treated with bicarbonate therapy had a 64% lower risk of doubling their serum creatinine compared to those treated with standard care (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58; P < .001; NNT = 9.6).³ Bicarbonate therapy also significantly reduced the risk of dialysis (HR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81; P = .005; NNT = 19); all-cause mortality (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; P = .01; NNT = 27); hospitalization rates (34.6% vs 14.2% by end of study in standard care and bicarbonate groups, respectively; P < .001); and hospital length of stay (1160 total d/y vs 400 total d/y; P < .0001).³ Inspection of Kaplan Meier curves shows outcomes beginning to diverge after 1 to 2 years of treatment. This trial was limited by the lack of blinding, placebo control, and standardization of care protocols.

Recommendations from others

The National Kidney Foundation’s 2012 Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines for the management of CKD recommend oral bicarbonate therapy for patients with CKD and serum bicarbonate concentrations < 22 mmol/L.⁴ The guidelines state that serum bicarbonate levels < 22 mmol/L correlate with an increased risk of CKD progression and death, whereas high bicarbonate levels (> 32 mmol/L) correlate with increased risk of death independent of level of kidney function. These guidelines cite small studies of alkali therapy slowing progression of CKD, although it was noted that the evidence base was not strong.

Editor’s takeaway

The evidence shows a small but consistent effect of bicarbonate therapy on CKD progression. For patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 and metabolic acidosis (defined by serum bicarbonate levels < 22 mmol/L), the use of supplemental oral sodium bicarbonate, which is inexpensive and safe, can delay or prevent progression of serious disease.

Evidence summary

Bicarbonate therapy demonstrates benefit in 2 meta-analyses

Two recent meta-analyses evaluated studies of bicarbonate therapy in patients with CKD, and both found benefit.^1,2

A 2020 meta-analysis included 15 RCTs (N = 2445) of adults (mean age, 61 years; range, 40.5-73.9 years) with CKD.¹ Most trials enrolled patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²; however, 1 study (N = 80) enrolled patients who had an eGFR of 60 to 90 mL/min/1.73 m² and albuminuria, and another (N = 74) enrolled patients with an eGFR of 15 to 89 mL/min/1.73 m². Four studies included patients with normal baseline bicarbonate levels, while the rest enrolled patients with metabolic acidosis. The primary outcome was CKD progression at study conclusion, which ranged from 3 to 60 months (median, 12 months).

Compared to placebo or no therapy, sodium bicarbonate (variously dosed) resulted in a small reduction in the rate of loss of kidney function (defined by eGFR or creatinine clearance) from baseline to trial completion (14 trials, N = 2073; standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.40; P = .018; I² = 50%).¹Sodium bicarbonate therapy also resulted in a moderate reduction in the risk of end-stage renal disease (7 trials, N = 1526; risk ratio [RR] = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.89; P = .011; I² = 69%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 14).¹ There was no difference in hospitalizations for heart failure, risk of worsening blood pressure, or all-cause mortality between the sodium bicarbonate and control groups.

Subgroup analysis by follow-up time found a significant preservation of eGFR only in studies with follow-up > 12 months (4 trials, N = 392; weighted mean difference = 3.71 mL/min/1.73 m²; 95% CI, 0.18-7.24; P = .042; I² = 63%).¹ Duration of therapy did not affect initiation of dialysis. Another subgroup analysis found that low- and moderate-quality studies were more likely than high-quality studies to find a change in the primary outcome. Overall, there was significant heterogeneity among the trials (control intervention, follow-up duration, methods of assessment of kidney function, dosage of sodium bicarbonate), as well as underrepresentation of female, pediatric, and elderly patients.

Another meta-analysis, published in 2019 by a different research group, analyzed 7 RCTs (N = 815) that comprised a subset of those in the newer analysis.² The 2019 analysis similarly found that, compared to placebo or usual care, oral bicarbonate therapy resulted in statistically significantly higher eGFRs at 3 to 60 months’ follow-up (mean difference = 3.1 mL/min/1.73 m²; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9).² The authors noted that the protective effect on eGFR was not seen in studies reporting outcomes at 1 year. Progression to end-stage renal disease or initiation of dialysis were not used as outcomes.

Significant outcomes seen in 1 large study

The largest study (N = 740) included in the 2020 meta-analysis (and discussed separately due to its size and duration) was a multicenter, unblinded, pragmatic trial investigating bicarbonate therapy in CKD.³ Patients were adults (mean age, 67.8 years) with CKD stages 3 to 5 and metabolic acidosis (serum bicarbonate level of 18-24 mmol/L); mean serum creatinine was 2.3 mg/dL, and mean serum bicarbonate was 21.5 mmol/L. Patients with severe heart failure or uncontrolled hypertension were excluded.

Compared to placebo or no therapy, sodium bicarbonate (variously dosed) resulted in a small reduction in the rate of loss of kidney function.

Researchers randomized patients to oral sodium bicarbonate (titrated to a target serum concentration of 24-28 mmol/L) or standard care for a median duration of 30 months. The primary endpoint was time to doubling of serum creatinine, and secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, time to initiation of dialysis, hospitalization rate, and hospital length of stay.

Continue to: Patients treated with...

Patients treated with bicarbonate therapy had a 64% lower risk of doubling their serum creatinine compared to those treated with standard care (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58; P < .001; NNT = 9.6).³ Bicarbonate therapy also significantly reduced the risk of dialysis (HR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81; P = .005; NNT = 19); all-cause mortality (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; P = .01; NNT = 27); hospitalization rates (34.6% vs 14.2% by end of study in standard care and bicarbonate groups, respectively; P < .001); and hospital length of stay (1160 total d/y vs 400 total d/y; P < .0001).³ Inspection of Kaplan Meier curves shows outcomes beginning to diverge after 1 to 2 years of treatment. This trial was limited by the lack of blinding, placebo control, and standardization of care protocols.

Recommendations from others

The National Kidney Foundation’s 2012 Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines for the management of CKD recommend oral bicarbonate therapy for patients with CKD and serum bicarbonate concentrations < 22 mmol/L.⁴ The guidelines state that serum bicarbonate levels < 22 mmol/L correlate with an increased risk of CKD progression and death, whereas high bicarbonate levels (> 32 mmol/L) correlate with increased risk of death independent of level of kidney function. These guidelines cite small studies of alkali therapy slowing progression of CKD, although it was noted that the evidence base was not strong.

Editor’s takeaway

The evidence shows a small but consistent effect of bicarbonate therapy on CKD progression. For patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 and metabolic acidosis (defined by serum bicarbonate levels < 22 mmol/L), the use of supplemental oral sodium bicarbonate, which is inexpensive and safe, can delay or prevent progression of serious disease.

Key clinical point: Colchicine use in patients with gout is associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

Major finding: Colchicine users vs. nonusers had a lower cumulative incidence of T2D (18.8% vs. 25.0%) and a significantly lower risk for T2D (adjusted hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.36-0.87), with the inverse association remaining significant across both sexes and different age groups.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study including patients newly diagnosed with gout who used (n = 3841) and did not use (n = 7682) colchicine.

Disclosures: The study received no external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chu C-C et al. Association between clinical use of colchicine and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among gouty patients: A nationwide cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6):3395 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063395

Key clinical point: Colchicine use in patients with gout is associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

Major finding: Colchicine users vs. nonusers had a lower cumulative incidence of T2D (18.8% vs. 25.0%) and a significantly lower risk for T2D (adjusted hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.36-0.87), with the inverse association remaining significant across both sexes and different age groups.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study including patients newly diagnosed with gout who used (n = 3841) and did not use (n = 7682) colchicine.

Disclosures: The study received no external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chu C-C et al. Association between clinical use of colchicine and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among gouty patients: A nationwide cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6):3395 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063395

Key clinical point: Colchicine use in patients with gout is associated with a lower risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

Major finding: Colchicine users vs. nonusers had a lower cumulative incidence of T2D (18.8% vs. 25.0%) and a significantly lower risk for T2D (adjusted hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.36-0.87), with the inverse association remaining significant across both sexes and different age groups.

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study including patients newly diagnosed with gout who used (n = 3841) and did not use (n = 7682) colchicine.

Disclosures: The study received no external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chu C-C et al. Association between clinical use of colchicine and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among gouty patients: A nationwide cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6):3395 (Mar 14). Doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063395

Key clinical point: In adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher albuminuria and worsening chronic kidney disease (CKD) were independently associated with a higher risk for incident stroke.

Major finding: Compared with a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio of <30 mg/g and no CKD, moderate (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.61; P = .010) and severe (aHR 2.29; P = .001) albuminuria and worsening CKD stages (stage 1: aHR 1.76; P = .020; stage 2: aHR 1.77; P = .012; and stage 3: aHR 2.03; P = .003) were significantly associated with a higher risk for stroke, respectively.

Study details: This study included 9170 adults with T2D from the ACCORD study, of which 156 experienced stroke events over a median follow-up of 4.9 years.

Disclosures: The study did not declare any source of funding. Dr. G Fonarow reported consulting for various sources.

Source: Kaze AD et al. Diabetic kidney disease and risk of incident stroke among adults with type 2 diabetes. BMC Med. 2022;20:127 (Mar 29). Doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02317-0

Key clinical point: In adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher albuminuria and worsening chronic kidney disease (CKD) were independently associated with a higher risk for incident stroke.

Major finding: Compared with a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio of <30 mg/g and no CKD, moderate (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.61; P = .010) and severe (aHR 2.29; P = .001) albuminuria and worsening CKD stages (stage 1: aHR 1.76; P = .020; stage 2: aHR 1.77; P = .012; and stage 3: aHR 2.03; P = .003) were significantly associated with a higher risk for stroke, respectively.

Study details: This study included 9170 adults with T2D from the ACCORD study, of which 156 experienced stroke events over a median follow-up of 4.9 years.

Disclosures: The study did not declare any source of funding. Dr. G Fonarow reported consulting for various sources.

Source: Kaze AD et al. Diabetic kidney disease and risk of incident stroke among adults with type 2 diabetes. BMC Med. 2022;20:127 (Mar 29). Doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02317-0

Key clinical point: In adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), higher albuminuria and worsening chronic kidney disease (CKD) were independently associated with a higher risk for incident stroke.

Major finding: Compared with a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio of <30 mg/g and no CKD, moderate (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.61; P = .010) and severe (aHR 2.29; P = .001) albuminuria and worsening CKD stages (stage 1: aHR 1.76; P = .020; stage 2: aHR 1.77; P = .012; and stage 3: aHR 2.03; P = .003) were significantly associated with a higher risk for stroke, respectively.

Study details: This study included 9170 adults with T2D from the ACCORD study, of which 156 experienced stroke events over a median follow-up of 4.9 years.

Disclosures: The study did not declare any source of funding. Dr. G Fonarow reported consulting for various sources.

Source: Kaze AD et al. Diabetic kidney disease and risk of incident stroke among adults with type 2 diabetes. BMC Med. 2022;20:127 (Mar 29). Doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02317-0

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who maintain glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of <7% vs. ≥7% during a 5-year post-period have a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.

Major finding: Maintaining an HbA1c level of <7% vs. ≥7% during the 5-year post-period was associated with a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (odds ratio [OR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.94), metabolic disease (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.22-0.60), neuropathy (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.84), nephropathy (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.94), and peripheral vascular disease (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33-0.83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 3067 adult patients with T2D and sustained glycemic control (HbA1c <7%; n = 2,119) or sustained suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≥7%; n = 1,488).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. KS Boye, R Paczkowski, and VT Thieu reported being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and MJ Lage received personal compensation from Eli Lilly.

Source: Boye KS et al. The association between sustained HbA1c control and long-term complications among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective study. Adv Ther. 2022 (Mar 22). Doi: 10.1007/s12325-022-02106-4

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who maintain glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of <7% vs. ≥7% during a 5-year post-period have a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.

Major finding: Maintaining an HbA1c level of <7% vs. ≥7% during the 5-year post-period was associated with a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (odds ratio [OR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.94), metabolic disease (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.22-0.60), neuropathy (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.84), nephropathy (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.94), and peripheral vascular disease (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33-0.83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 3067 adult patients with T2D and sustained glycemic control (HbA1c <7%; n = 2,119) or sustained suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≥7%; n = 1,488).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. KS Boye, R Paczkowski, and VT Thieu reported being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and MJ Lage received personal compensation from Eli Lilly.

Source: Boye KS et al. The association between sustained HbA1c control and long-term complications among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective study. Adv Ther. 2022 (Mar 22). Doi: 10.1007/s12325-022-02106-4

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who maintain glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of <7% vs. ≥7% during a 5-year post-period have a lower risk for diabetes-related complications.

Major finding: Maintaining an HbA1c level of <7% vs. ≥7% during the 5-year post-period was associated with a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease (odds ratio [OR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.94), metabolic disease (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.22-0.60), neuropathy (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.84), nephropathy (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.94), and peripheral vascular disease (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33-0.83).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 3067 adult patients with T2D and sustained glycemic control (HbA1c <7%; n = 2,119) or sustained suboptimal glycemic control (HbA1c ≥7%; n = 1,488).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. KS Boye, R Paczkowski, and VT Thieu reported being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and MJ Lage received personal compensation from Eli Lilly.

Source: Boye KS et al. The association between sustained HbA1c control and long-term complications among individuals with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective study. Adv Ther. 2022 (Mar 22). Doi: 10.1007/s12325-022-02106-4

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and severe mental illness (SMI) are at a higher risk of developing nephropathy, lower limp amputations, and cardiovascular diseases (CVD), but not retinopathy, compared with those with T2D and without SMI.

Major finding: Compared with patients with T2D and without SMI, those with T2D and SMI had a higher incidence rate (IR) of nephropathy (IR ratio [IRR] 1.15; 95% CI 1.12-1.18), amputations (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.04-1.28), and CVD (men IRR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15, and women IRR 1.18; 95% CI 1.13-1.22), but a lower IR of retinopathy (IRR 0.75; 95% CI 0.70-0.81).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based dynamic cohort study including 371,625 patients with T2D, of which 30,102 had a coexisting SMI.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared owning shares or receiving research grants from various sources.

Source: Scheuer SH et al. Severe mental illness and the risk of diabetes complications. A nationwide register-based cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgac204

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and severe mental illness (SMI) are at a higher risk of developing nephropathy, lower limp amputations, and cardiovascular diseases (CVD), but not retinopathy, compared with those with T2D and without SMI.

Major finding: Compared with patients with T2D and without SMI, those with T2D and SMI had a higher incidence rate (IR) of nephropathy (IR ratio [IRR] 1.15; 95% CI 1.12-1.18), amputations (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.04-1.28), and CVD (men IRR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15, and women IRR 1.18; 95% CI 1.13-1.22), but a lower IR of retinopathy (IRR 0.75; 95% CI 0.70-0.81).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based dynamic cohort study including 371,625 patients with T2D, of which 30,102 had a coexisting SMI.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared owning shares or receiving research grants from various sources.

Source: Scheuer SH et al. Severe mental illness and the risk of diabetes complications. A nationwide register-based cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgac204

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and severe mental illness (SMI) are at a higher risk of developing nephropathy, lower limp amputations, and cardiovascular diseases (CVD), but not retinopathy, compared with those with T2D and without SMI.

Major finding: Compared with patients with T2D and without SMI, those with T2D and SMI had a higher incidence rate (IR) of nephropathy (IR ratio [IRR] 1.15; 95% CI 1.12-1.18), amputations (IRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.04-1.28), and CVD (men IRR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15, and women IRR 1.18; 95% CI 1.13-1.22), but a lower IR of retinopathy (IRR 0.75; 95% CI 0.70-0.81).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based dynamic cohort study including 371,625 patients with T2D, of which 30,102 had a coexisting SMI.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared owning shares or receiving research grants from various sources.

Source: Scheuer SH et al. Severe mental illness and the risk of diabetes complications. A nationwide register-based cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgac204

Key clinical point: The preadmission antidiabetic medications may influence mortality outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: The risk for in-hospital mortality was significantly lower among patients taking metformin (odd ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37-0.69), and sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitor (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.88), but higher among those taking dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.07-1.42) and insulin (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.33-2.19), compared with patients taking none of these medications. Sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed neutral effects on mortality.

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 61 studies including 3,061,584 patients with COVID-19 and T2D.

Disclosures: This study received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Source: Nguyen NN et al. Preadmission use of antidiabetic medications and mortality among patients with COVID-19 having type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Metabolism. 2022;131:155196 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2022.155196

Key clinical point: The preadmission antidiabetic medications may influence mortality outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: The risk for in-hospital mortality was significantly lower among patients taking metformin (odd ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37-0.69), and sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitor (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.88), but higher among those taking dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.07-1.42) and insulin (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.33-2.19), compared with patients taking none of these medications. Sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed neutral effects on mortality.

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 61 studies including 3,061,584 patients with COVID-19 and T2D.

Disclosures: This study received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Source: Nguyen NN et al. Preadmission use of antidiabetic medications and mortality among patients with COVID-19 having type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Metabolism. 2022;131:155196 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2022.155196

Key clinical point: The preadmission antidiabetic medications may influence mortality outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: The risk for in-hospital mortality was significantly lower among patients taking metformin (odd ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% CI 0.47-0.62), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37-0.69), and sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitor (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.88), but higher among those taking dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.07-1.42) and insulin (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.33-2.19), compared with patients taking none of these medications. Sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed neutral effects on mortality.

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 61 studies including 3,061,584 patients with COVID-19 and T2D.

Disclosures: This study received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Source: Nguyen NN et al. Preadmission use of antidiabetic medications and mortality among patients with COVID-19 having type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Metabolism. 2022;131:155196 (Mar 31). Doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2022.155196

Key clinical point: In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) was associated with a lower risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and acute renal failure (ARF) and a slower decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Major finding: Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the use of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i was associated with a significantly lower risk for ESRD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001) and ARF (HR 0.59; P < .001) and a significantly slower decline in eGFR (−0.060 vs. −0.625 mL/min/1.73m²  per year; P_interaction < .001).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study propensity score matched 6333 patients with T2D receiving an SGLT2i with 25,332 of those receiving a DPP4i.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Au PCM et al. Association between SGLT20iInhibitors vs DPP4 inhibitors and renal outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 18). Doi:  10.1210/clinem/dgac164

Key clinical point: In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) was associated with a lower risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and acute renal failure (ARF) and a slower decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Major finding: Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the use of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i was associated with a significantly lower risk for ESRD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001) and ARF (HR 0.59; P < .001) and a significantly slower decline in eGFR (−0.060 vs. −0.625 mL/min/1.73m²  per year; P_interaction < .001).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study propensity score matched 6333 patients with T2D receiving an SGLT2i with 25,332 of those receiving a DPP4i.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Au PCM et al. Association between SGLT20iInhibitors vs DPP4 inhibitors and renal outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 18). Doi:  10.1210/clinem/dgac164

Key clinical point: In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) was associated with a lower risk for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and acute renal failure (ARF) and a slower decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Major finding: Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the use of SGLT2i vs. DPP4i was associated with a significantly lower risk for ESRD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; P < .001) and ARF (HR 0.59; P < .001) and a significantly slower decline in eGFR (−0.060 vs. −0.625 mL/min/1.73m²  per year; P_interaction < .001).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study propensity score matched 6333 patients with T2D receiving an SGLT2i with 25,332 of those receiving a DPP4i.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Au PCM et al. Association between SGLT20iInhibitors vs DPP4 inhibitors and renal outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 (Mar 18). Doi:  10.1210/clinem/dgac164

Key clinical point: Resistance training (RT) effectively reduces glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), with RT interventions triggering a larger vs. medium or smaller improvement in muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c.

Major finding: RT intervention vs. control treatment significantly decreased HbA1c (weighted mean difference −0.39; P < .001), with a larger vs. medium or small effect on muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c (β −0.99; P = .0470).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 20 trials including 1172 patients with T2DM.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Jansson AK et al. Effect of resistance training on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the moderating effect of changes in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022;10:e002595 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002595

Key clinical point: Resistance training (RT) effectively reduces glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), with RT interventions triggering a larger vs. medium or smaller improvement in muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c.

Major finding: RT intervention vs. control treatment significantly decreased HbA1c (weighted mean difference −0.39; P < .001), with a larger vs. medium or small effect on muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c (β −0.99; P = .0470).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 20 trials including 1172 patients with T2DM.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Jansson AK et al. Effect of resistance training on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the moderating effect of changes in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022;10:e002595 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002595

Key clinical point: Resistance training (RT) effectively reduces glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), with RT interventions triggering a larger vs. medium or smaller improvement in muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c.

Major finding: RT intervention vs. control treatment significantly decreased HbA1c (weighted mean difference −0.39; P < .001), with a larger vs. medium or small effect on muscular strength leading to a greater reduction in HbA1c (β −0.99; P = .0470).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 20 trials including 1172 patients with T2DM.

Disclosures: The study received no specific funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Jansson AK et al. Effect of resistance training on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the moderating effect of changes in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022;10:e002595 (Mar 10). Doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002595