Blood test may aid diagnosis of HELLP

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 06/01/2016 - 05:00
Display Headline
Blood test may aid diagnosis of HELLP

Pregnant woman
Photo by Nina Matthews

A blood test developed to diagnose a rare genetic blood cell disorder, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), may also aid in the diagnosis of HELLP syndrome, a life-threatening high blood pressure condition that affects 1% of all pregnant women.

The study, based on blood samples from a small number of women, suggests that aHUS has similar underlying biochemistry to HELLP, which affects hemolysis, elevates liver enzymes, and causes a low platelet count. Both conditions have over activation of the alternative pathway of complement.

At present, no diagnostic blood or biomarker test exists to diagnose HELLP, which is thought to be a severe form of preeclampsia. The condition is diagnosed only by its symptoms.

Senior study author Robert Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins, and his team developed the modified Ham test to diagnose aHUS, a genetic disorder in which abnormal blood clots form in small blood vessels in the kidneys. They published that work last year in Blood.
 
The two conditions share a number of traits, such as hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, a low platelet count, kidney dysfunction, high blood pressure, and seizures. This led the investigators to believe that the modified Ham test could also help identify women with HELLP syndrome.

"The clinical implications from an obstetric point of view are potentially huge," said lead study author Arthur Vaught, MD, also of Johns Hopkins. "If this works, we can reduce pre-term deliveries, stays in the neonatal intensive care unit, and other complications for mothers and their babies."

The team analyzed serum samples from 14 women with classic or atypical HELLP syndrome, 7 with severe preeclampsia, 11 women with normal pregnancies, and 8 healthy nonpregnant women. All pregnant women were at least 23 weeks’ gestation, the point at which HELLP symptoms start to arise.

The team evaluated patient sera using terminal product of complement activation (C5b-9). They observed that women with classic or atypical HELLP had increased complement activation compared to nonpregnant controls.

Women with classic HELLP had an average cell killing of 34.3% compared with 26% in women with atypical HELLP, 5% in women with normal pregnancies, and3.3% in women who were not pregnant.

The investigators then added eculizumab to HELLP sera to see whether the agent could inhibit complement activation. They found that mixing HELLP serum with eculizumab-containing serum significantly decreased cell killing compared with HELLP serum alone.

The kill rate in women with classic or atypical HELLP decreased from 34% to 5% with eculizumab.

Eculizumab (Soliris), manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, is a monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and aHUS.

Further investigation is required to confirm these findings, but thus far, the investigators believe the modified Ham assay may assist in diagnosing the HELLP syndrome and corroborate its relationship to aHUS.

The current study by Vaught et al is published in Experimental Hematology.

Publications
Topics

Pregnant woman
Photo by Nina Matthews

A blood test developed to diagnose a rare genetic blood cell disorder, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), may also aid in the diagnosis of HELLP syndrome, a life-threatening high blood pressure condition that affects 1% of all pregnant women.

The study, based on blood samples from a small number of women, suggests that aHUS has similar underlying biochemistry to HELLP, which affects hemolysis, elevates liver enzymes, and causes a low platelet count. Both conditions have over activation of the alternative pathway of complement.

At present, no diagnostic blood or biomarker test exists to diagnose HELLP, which is thought to be a severe form of preeclampsia. The condition is diagnosed only by its symptoms.

Senior study author Robert Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins, and his team developed the modified Ham test to diagnose aHUS, a genetic disorder in which abnormal blood clots form in small blood vessels in the kidneys. They published that work last year in Blood.
 
The two conditions share a number of traits, such as hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, a low platelet count, kidney dysfunction, high blood pressure, and seizures. This led the investigators to believe that the modified Ham test could also help identify women with HELLP syndrome.

"The clinical implications from an obstetric point of view are potentially huge," said lead study author Arthur Vaught, MD, also of Johns Hopkins. "If this works, we can reduce pre-term deliveries, stays in the neonatal intensive care unit, and other complications for mothers and their babies."

The team analyzed serum samples from 14 women with classic or atypical HELLP syndrome, 7 with severe preeclampsia, 11 women with normal pregnancies, and 8 healthy nonpregnant women. All pregnant women were at least 23 weeks’ gestation, the point at which HELLP symptoms start to arise.

The team evaluated patient sera using terminal product of complement activation (C5b-9). They observed that women with classic or atypical HELLP had increased complement activation compared to nonpregnant controls.

Women with classic HELLP had an average cell killing of 34.3% compared with 26% in women with atypical HELLP, 5% in women with normal pregnancies, and3.3% in women who were not pregnant.

The investigators then added eculizumab to HELLP sera to see whether the agent could inhibit complement activation. They found that mixing HELLP serum with eculizumab-containing serum significantly decreased cell killing compared with HELLP serum alone.

The kill rate in women with classic or atypical HELLP decreased from 34% to 5% with eculizumab.

Eculizumab (Soliris), manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, is a monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and aHUS.

Further investigation is required to confirm these findings, but thus far, the investigators believe the modified Ham assay may assist in diagnosing the HELLP syndrome and corroborate its relationship to aHUS.

The current study by Vaught et al is published in Experimental Hematology.

Pregnant woman
Photo by Nina Matthews

A blood test developed to diagnose a rare genetic blood cell disorder, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), may also aid in the diagnosis of HELLP syndrome, a life-threatening high blood pressure condition that affects 1% of all pregnant women.

The study, based on blood samples from a small number of women, suggests that aHUS has similar underlying biochemistry to HELLP, which affects hemolysis, elevates liver enzymes, and causes a low platelet count. Both conditions have over activation of the alternative pathway of complement.

At present, no diagnostic blood or biomarker test exists to diagnose HELLP, which is thought to be a severe form of preeclampsia. The condition is diagnosed only by its symptoms.

Senior study author Robert Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins, and his team developed the modified Ham test to diagnose aHUS, a genetic disorder in which abnormal blood clots form in small blood vessels in the kidneys. They published that work last year in Blood.
 
The two conditions share a number of traits, such as hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, a low platelet count, kidney dysfunction, high blood pressure, and seizures. This led the investigators to believe that the modified Ham test could also help identify women with HELLP syndrome.

"The clinical implications from an obstetric point of view are potentially huge," said lead study author Arthur Vaught, MD, also of Johns Hopkins. "If this works, we can reduce pre-term deliveries, stays in the neonatal intensive care unit, and other complications for mothers and their babies."

The team analyzed serum samples from 14 women with classic or atypical HELLP syndrome, 7 with severe preeclampsia, 11 women with normal pregnancies, and 8 healthy nonpregnant women. All pregnant women were at least 23 weeks’ gestation, the point at which HELLP symptoms start to arise.

The team evaluated patient sera using terminal product of complement activation (C5b-9). They observed that women with classic or atypical HELLP had increased complement activation compared to nonpregnant controls.

Women with classic HELLP had an average cell killing of 34.3% compared with 26% in women with atypical HELLP, 5% in women with normal pregnancies, and3.3% in women who were not pregnant.

The investigators then added eculizumab to HELLP sera to see whether the agent could inhibit complement activation. They found that mixing HELLP serum with eculizumab-containing serum significantly decreased cell killing compared with HELLP serum alone.

The kill rate in women with classic or atypical HELLP decreased from 34% to 5% with eculizumab.

Eculizumab (Soliris), manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, is a monoclonal antibody approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) and aHUS.

Further investigation is required to confirm these findings, but thus far, the investigators believe the modified Ham assay may assist in diagnosing the HELLP syndrome and corroborate its relationship to aHUS.

The current study by Vaught et al is published in Experimental Hematology.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Blood test may aid diagnosis of HELLP
Display Headline
Blood test may aid diagnosis of HELLP
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

June 2016 Digital Edition

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/19/2018 - 15:14
Long-term ICU survival, MS therapies, glycemic management in rural veterans and more.
Publications
Topics
Sections
Long-term ICU survival, MS therapies, glycemic management in rural veterans and more.
Long-term ICU survival, MS therapies, glycemic management in rural veterans and more.
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME

HCV regimen found safe, effective in patients with severe renal disease

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 15:54
Display Headline
HCV regimen found safe, effective in patients with severe renal disease

A 12-week regimen achieved sustained viral response for 90% of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD), researchers reported in the April issue of Gastroenterology.

“The regimen is well tolerated, though ribavirin use may require a reduction or interruption to manage anemia,” said Dr. Paul Pockros at Scripps Clinic and Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and his associates. The second phase of the study will evaluate the regimen in treatment-experienced CKD patients and those with compensated cirrhosis, they said.

©picsfive/Fotolia

The regimen contained ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir.

Between 8% and 44% of hemodialysis patients are HCV positive, and CKD is known to heighten the risk of HCV-associated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, the researchers noted. While sofosbuvir is cleared renally, ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir undergo hepatic metabolism and needed no dose adjustment in phase I studies of patients with mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment. To further investigate the safety and efficacy of these direct-acting antivirals in patients with severe kidney disease, the researchers performed a single-arm, open-label, multicenter study of 20 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic, HCV-infected adults with stage 4 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) or stage 5 (eGFR, less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or requiring hemodialysis). Patients received once-daily ombitasvir (25 mg), paritaprevir (150 mg), and ritonavir (100 mg) plus dasabuvir (250 mg) for 12 weeks. The 13 patients with genotype 1a infections also received once-daily ribavirin (200 mg). Most patients were black men with stage 5 CKD, and 14 were on hemodialysis, the researchers said (Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr 16. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.078).

All 20 patients completed treatment, and 18 (90%) achieved sustained viral response (SVR) at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12; 95% confidence interval, 70%-97%). No patients developed hepatic decompensation, the researchers said. The most common adverse effects were anemia (45%), fatigue (35%), diarrhea (25%), and nausea (25%). Anemia developed only in patients receiving ribavirin and was more pronounced than in phase III studies of this regimen, the researchers said. Hemoglobin levels dropped an average of 1.38 plus or minus 1.54 g/dL among patients who received ribavirin, compared with 0.02 plus or minus 0.9 g/dL among patients who did not receive ribavirin. There was one case of grade 3 anemia related to incorrect dosing of ribavirin; the lowest measured hemoglobin level was 7.0 g/dL, which improved to more than 10 g/dL after stopping ribavirin and starting erythropoietin treatment. This patient also achieved SVR12. The other eight patients who developed anemia also stopped ribavirin, although three were able to resume it after their hemoglobin levels improved.

Of the two patients who did not achieve SVR12, one relapsed 4 weeks after treatment, and one died of cardiac arrest 14 days after treatment. The patient who died had a history of hypertension; his hemoglobin level was stable (9-11 g/dL) during the last 6 weeks of treatment, and was 10 g/dL at admission, suggesting that ribavirin-induced anemia did not cause the cardiac event, the investigators said.

“The results of this study are important for hepatologists, gastroenterologists, and infectious disease specialists who are accustomed to treating HCV-infected patients with DAA [direct-acting antiviral] therapy but who may not yet have seen sufficient data to initiate DAA therapy in patients with ESRD [end-stage renal disease],” the researchers concluded. “Nephrologists, who may not be accustomed to treating HCV, should also be aware that treatment options may now be available that can help prevent the end-stage sequelae of HCV. How treatment of HCV infection affects early or intermediate stages of CKD and how achievement of SVR impacts strategies for kidney transplantation in patients with ESRD require more study.”

AbbVie makes the regimen and sponsored the study. Dr. Pockros and six coinvestigators disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Seven coinvestigators reported being employed by AbbVie.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

A 12-week regimen achieved sustained viral response for 90% of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD), researchers reported in the April issue of Gastroenterology.

“The regimen is well tolerated, though ribavirin use may require a reduction or interruption to manage anemia,” said Dr. Paul Pockros at Scripps Clinic and Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and his associates. The second phase of the study will evaluate the regimen in treatment-experienced CKD patients and those with compensated cirrhosis, they said.

©picsfive/Fotolia

The regimen contained ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir.

Between 8% and 44% of hemodialysis patients are HCV positive, and CKD is known to heighten the risk of HCV-associated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, the researchers noted. While sofosbuvir is cleared renally, ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir undergo hepatic metabolism and needed no dose adjustment in phase I studies of patients with mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment. To further investigate the safety and efficacy of these direct-acting antivirals in patients with severe kidney disease, the researchers performed a single-arm, open-label, multicenter study of 20 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic, HCV-infected adults with stage 4 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) or stage 5 (eGFR, less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or requiring hemodialysis). Patients received once-daily ombitasvir (25 mg), paritaprevir (150 mg), and ritonavir (100 mg) plus dasabuvir (250 mg) for 12 weeks. The 13 patients with genotype 1a infections also received once-daily ribavirin (200 mg). Most patients were black men with stage 5 CKD, and 14 were on hemodialysis, the researchers said (Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr 16. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.078).

All 20 patients completed treatment, and 18 (90%) achieved sustained viral response (SVR) at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12; 95% confidence interval, 70%-97%). No patients developed hepatic decompensation, the researchers said. The most common adverse effects were anemia (45%), fatigue (35%), diarrhea (25%), and nausea (25%). Anemia developed only in patients receiving ribavirin and was more pronounced than in phase III studies of this regimen, the researchers said. Hemoglobin levels dropped an average of 1.38 plus or minus 1.54 g/dL among patients who received ribavirin, compared with 0.02 plus or minus 0.9 g/dL among patients who did not receive ribavirin. There was one case of grade 3 anemia related to incorrect dosing of ribavirin; the lowest measured hemoglobin level was 7.0 g/dL, which improved to more than 10 g/dL after stopping ribavirin and starting erythropoietin treatment. This patient also achieved SVR12. The other eight patients who developed anemia also stopped ribavirin, although three were able to resume it after their hemoglobin levels improved.

Of the two patients who did not achieve SVR12, one relapsed 4 weeks after treatment, and one died of cardiac arrest 14 days after treatment. The patient who died had a history of hypertension; his hemoglobin level was stable (9-11 g/dL) during the last 6 weeks of treatment, and was 10 g/dL at admission, suggesting that ribavirin-induced anemia did not cause the cardiac event, the investigators said.

“The results of this study are important for hepatologists, gastroenterologists, and infectious disease specialists who are accustomed to treating HCV-infected patients with DAA [direct-acting antiviral] therapy but who may not yet have seen sufficient data to initiate DAA therapy in patients with ESRD [end-stage renal disease],” the researchers concluded. “Nephrologists, who may not be accustomed to treating HCV, should also be aware that treatment options may now be available that can help prevent the end-stage sequelae of HCV. How treatment of HCV infection affects early or intermediate stages of CKD and how achievement of SVR impacts strategies for kidney transplantation in patients with ESRD require more study.”

AbbVie makes the regimen and sponsored the study. Dr. Pockros and six coinvestigators disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Seven coinvestigators reported being employed by AbbVie.

A 12-week regimen achieved sustained viral response for 90% of patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD), researchers reported in the April issue of Gastroenterology.

“The regimen is well tolerated, though ribavirin use may require a reduction or interruption to manage anemia,” said Dr. Paul Pockros at Scripps Clinic and Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and his associates. The second phase of the study will evaluate the regimen in treatment-experienced CKD patients and those with compensated cirrhosis, they said.

©picsfive/Fotolia

The regimen contained ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir.

Between 8% and 44% of hemodialysis patients are HCV positive, and CKD is known to heighten the risk of HCV-associated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related death, the researchers noted. While sofosbuvir is cleared renally, ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir undergo hepatic metabolism and needed no dose adjustment in phase I studies of patients with mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment. To further investigate the safety and efficacy of these direct-acting antivirals in patients with severe kidney disease, the researchers performed a single-arm, open-label, multicenter study of 20 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic, HCV-infected adults with stage 4 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-30 mL/min per 1.73 m2) or stage 5 (eGFR, less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or requiring hemodialysis). Patients received once-daily ombitasvir (25 mg), paritaprevir (150 mg), and ritonavir (100 mg) plus dasabuvir (250 mg) for 12 weeks. The 13 patients with genotype 1a infections also received once-daily ribavirin (200 mg). Most patients were black men with stage 5 CKD, and 14 were on hemodialysis, the researchers said (Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr 16. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.078).

All 20 patients completed treatment, and 18 (90%) achieved sustained viral response (SVR) at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12; 95% confidence interval, 70%-97%). No patients developed hepatic decompensation, the researchers said. The most common adverse effects were anemia (45%), fatigue (35%), diarrhea (25%), and nausea (25%). Anemia developed only in patients receiving ribavirin and was more pronounced than in phase III studies of this regimen, the researchers said. Hemoglobin levels dropped an average of 1.38 plus or minus 1.54 g/dL among patients who received ribavirin, compared with 0.02 plus or minus 0.9 g/dL among patients who did not receive ribavirin. There was one case of grade 3 anemia related to incorrect dosing of ribavirin; the lowest measured hemoglobin level was 7.0 g/dL, which improved to more than 10 g/dL after stopping ribavirin and starting erythropoietin treatment. This patient also achieved SVR12. The other eight patients who developed anemia also stopped ribavirin, although three were able to resume it after their hemoglobin levels improved.

Of the two patients who did not achieve SVR12, one relapsed 4 weeks after treatment, and one died of cardiac arrest 14 days after treatment. The patient who died had a history of hypertension; his hemoglobin level was stable (9-11 g/dL) during the last 6 weeks of treatment, and was 10 g/dL at admission, suggesting that ribavirin-induced anemia did not cause the cardiac event, the investigators said.

“The results of this study are important for hepatologists, gastroenterologists, and infectious disease specialists who are accustomed to treating HCV-infected patients with DAA [direct-acting antiviral] therapy but who may not yet have seen sufficient data to initiate DAA therapy in patients with ESRD [end-stage renal disease],” the researchers concluded. “Nephrologists, who may not be accustomed to treating HCV, should also be aware that treatment options may now be available that can help prevent the end-stage sequelae of HCV. How treatment of HCV infection affects early or intermediate stages of CKD and how achievement of SVR impacts strategies for kidney transplantation in patients with ESRD require more study.”

AbbVie makes the regimen and sponsored the study. Dr. Pockros and six coinvestigators disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Seven coinvestigators reported being employed by AbbVie.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
HCV regimen found safe, effective in patients with severe renal disease
Display Headline
HCV regimen found safe, effective in patients with severe renal disease
Article Source

FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Twelve weeks of ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir cured 90% of patients with hepatitis C virus infection and severe or end-stage renal disease.

Major finding: The rate of SVR12 was 90% (95% CI, 70%-97%).

Data source: A single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial of 20 noncirrhotic genotype 1 HCV-infected adults with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease.

Disclosures: AbbVie makes the regimen and sponsored the study. Dr. Pockros and six coinvestigators disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Seven coinvestigators reported being employed by AbbVie.

VIDEO: Asymptomatic pancreatic cysts rarely became malignant

Risk stratification becoming increasingly important
Article Type
Changed
Wed, 05/26/2021 - 13:54
Display Headline
VIDEO: Asymptomatic pancreatic cysts rarely became malignant

Only 1% of adults with asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts developed invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma after more than 5 years of follow-up, according to a multicenter retrospective study reported in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

©iStock / ThinkStockPhotos.com

Furthermore, there were no malignant conversions among patients lacking American Gastroenterological Association high-risk features – that is, mural nodules, dilated pancreatic ducts, or cysts measuring more than 3 cm, said Dr. Wilson Kwong at the University of California San Diego Health Sciences in La Jolla. “There is a very low risk of malignant transformation of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts after 5 years,” he and his associates wrote.

Up to 20% of cross-sectional imaging studies reveal incidental pancreatic cysts, the researchers noted. Cysts with neoplastic features are recommended for indefinite surveillance, even though there is little or no data on their natural history and malignant potential beyond 5- 10 years, they added. Therefore, they studied 310 patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound of pancreatic cysts at an academic medical center, a Veterans’ Affairs hospital, and two community health care systems in California between 2002 and 2010. The most common age at enrollment was 66 years, 60% of patients were women, and the median follow-up period was 87 months (range, 60 to 189 months). A total of 90% of patients were followed for 5-10 years, while 10% were followed for more than 10 years (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb 10. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.013).

 

 

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

In all, three patients developed invasive pancreatic malignancies after 6, 8, and 11 years of follow-up, for an overall conversion rate of 1%. Conversion rates by subgroup were 0% for patients with no high-risk AGA features, 1% (one case) for patients with one high-risk feature, and 15% (two cases) for patients with two high-risk features. “Because the risk of malignant transformation beyond 5 years is lower than the 1.4% mortality risk of pancreatic resection at high-volume centers, the argument can be made that discontinuing surveillance after 5 years is justified,” the researchers said. Specifically, surveillance could be discontinued after 5 years for neoplastic pancreatic cysts with up to one high-risk feature, particularly if patients have significant comorbidities that increase their risk of imminent death from other causes, they added. In contrast, healthy patients in their 60s and 70s might benefit from long-term surveillance given their longer life expectancy, they said. “Among patients with two high-risk features who remain surgically fit, discussion of surgery or surveillance beyond 5 years should be considered,” they emphasized.

A total of two patients developed high-grade dysplasia – a risk factor for invasive pancreatic cancer – but even so, the aggregate rate of cancer and high-grade dysplasia was 1.6%, only slightly higher than the fatality rate associated with pancreatic resection, the researchers noted. By excluding patients with recent acute pancreatitis (because of the likelihood of pseudocysts), they might have inadvertently excluded “a small number” of patients with pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, they added.

The University of California San Diego Health Care System supported the study. The investigators had no disclosures.

Body

Kwong et al. present important data demonstrating a low risk of malignant transformation for pancreas cysts followed for more than 5 years, which is similar to the risk of surgical resection. Mortality from nonpancreatic causes was found to be eightfold higher than mortality from pancreatic cancer. The goal of pancreas cyst surveillance is to prevent death from pancreatic cancer, currently accomplished by identifying high-risk cysts for surgical resection. When evaluating the utility of surveillance, patient and cyst characteristics can be considered.

Elderly patients with multiple comorbidities are unlikely to benefit from long-term surveillance as they may be poor surgical candidates and are unlikely to die from the malignant progression of a pancreas cyst. Healthy patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer and/or identifiable genetic risk factors, however, may benefit from long-term surveillance. Although demonstrated to be infrequent, cysts that have been stable for 5-10 years rarely may progress to cancer. The presence of more than one high-risk cyst feature increased the risk of progression from approximately 1% to 15%. The study of larger groups of cysts with morphologic high-risk features is required. The addition of molecular and genetic cyst and patient features has the potential to assist in risk stratification.

Clarifying which cysts and patients are likely to benefit from surveillance and resection is of increasing importance as high-resolution, cross-sectional imaging identifies greater numbers of pancreas cysts. 

Dr. Harry R. Aslanian, AGAF, is director, Advanced Endoscopy Fellowship, and associate professor, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

Kwong et al. present important data demonstrating a low risk of malignant transformation for pancreas cysts followed for more than 5 years, which is similar to the risk of surgical resection. Mortality from nonpancreatic causes was found to be eightfold higher than mortality from pancreatic cancer. The goal of pancreas cyst surveillance is to prevent death from pancreatic cancer, currently accomplished by identifying high-risk cysts for surgical resection. When evaluating the utility of surveillance, patient and cyst characteristics can be considered.

Elderly patients with multiple comorbidities are unlikely to benefit from long-term surveillance as they may be poor surgical candidates and are unlikely to die from the malignant progression of a pancreas cyst. Healthy patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer and/or identifiable genetic risk factors, however, may benefit from long-term surveillance. Although demonstrated to be infrequent, cysts that have been stable for 5-10 years rarely may progress to cancer. The presence of more than one high-risk cyst feature increased the risk of progression from approximately 1% to 15%. The study of larger groups of cysts with morphologic high-risk features is required. The addition of molecular and genetic cyst and patient features has the potential to assist in risk stratification.

Clarifying which cysts and patients are likely to benefit from surveillance and resection is of increasing importance as high-resolution, cross-sectional imaging identifies greater numbers of pancreas cysts. 

Dr. Harry R. Aslanian, AGAF, is director, Advanced Endoscopy Fellowship, and associate professor, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus.

Body

Kwong et al. present important data demonstrating a low risk of malignant transformation for pancreas cysts followed for more than 5 years, which is similar to the risk of surgical resection. Mortality from nonpancreatic causes was found to be eightfold higher than mortality from pancreatic cancer. The goal of pancreas cyst surveillance is to prevent death from pancreatic cancer, currently accomplished by identifying high-risk cysts for surgical resection. When evaluating the utility of surveillance, patient and cyst characteristics can be considered.

Elderly patients with multiple comorbidities are unlikely to benefit from long-term surveillance as they may be poor surgical candidates and are unlikely to die from the malignant progression of a pancreas cyst. Healthy patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer and/or identifiable genetic risk factors, however, may benefit from long-term surveillance. Although demonstrated to be infrequent, cysts that have been stable for 5-10 years rarely may progress to cancer. The presence of more than one high-risk cyst feature increased the risk of progression from approximately 1% to 15%. The study of larger groups of cysts with morphologic high-risk features is required. The addition of molecular and genetic cyst and patient features has the potential to assist in risk stratification.

Clarifying which cysts and patients are likely to benefit from surveillance and resection is of increasing importance as high-resolution, cross-sectional imaging identifies greater numbers of pancreas cysts. 

Dr. Harry R. Aslanian, AGAF, is director, Advanced Endoscopy Fellowship, and associate professor, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus.

Title
Risk stratification becoming increasingly important
Risk stratification becoming increasingly important

Only 1% of adults with asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts developed invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma after more than 5 years of follow-up, according to a multicenter retrospective study reported in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

©iStock / ThinkStockPhotos.com

Furthermore, there were no malignant conversions among patients lacking American Gastroenterological Association high-risk features – that is, mural nodules, dilated pancreatic ducts, or cysts measuring more than 3 cm, said Dr. Wilson Kwong at the University of California San Diego Health Sciences in La Jolla. “There is a very low risk of malignant transformation of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts after 5 years,” he and his associates wrote.

Up to 20% of cross-sectional imaging studies reveal incidental pancreatic cysts, the researchers noted. Cysts with neoplastic features are recommended for indefinite surveillance, even though there is little or no data on their natural history and malignant potential beyond 5- 10 years, they added. Therefore, they studied 310 patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound of pancreatic cysts at an academic medical center, a Veterans’ Affairs hospital, and two community health care systems in California between 2002 and 2010. The most common age at enrollment was 66 years, 60% of patients were women, and the median follow-up period was 87 months (range, 60 to 189 months). A total of 90% of patients were followed for 5-10 years, while 10% were followed for more than 10 years (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb 10. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.013).

 

 

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

In all, three patients developed invasive pancreatic malignancies after 6, 8, and 11 years of follow-up, for an overall conversion rate of 1%. Conversion rates by subgroup were 0% for patients with no high-risk AGA features, 1% (one case) for patients with one high-risk feature, and 15% (two cases) for patients with two high-risk features. “Because the risk of malignant transformation beyond 5 years is lower than the 1.4% mortality risk of pancreatic resection at high-volume centers, the argument can be made that discontinuing surveillance after 5 years is justified,” the researchers said. Specifically, surveillance could be discontinued after 5 years for neoplastic pancreatic cysts with up to one high-risk feature, particularly if patients have significant comorbidities that increase their risk of imminent death from other causes, they added. In contrast, healthy patients in their 60s and 70s might benefit from long-term surveillance given their longer life expectancy, they said. “Among patients with two high-risk features who remain surgically fit, discussion of surgery or surveillance beyond 5 years should be considered,” they emphasized.

A total of two patients developed high-grade dysplasia – a risk factor for invasive pancreatic cancer – but even so, the aggregate rate of cancer and high-grade dysplasia was 1.6%, only slightly higher than the fatality rate associated with pancreatic resection, the researchers noted. By excluding patients with recent acute pancreatitis (because of the likelihood of pseudocysts), they might have inadvertently excluded “a small number” of patients with pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, they added.

The University of California San Diego Health Care System supported the study. The investigators had no disclosures.

Only 1% of adults with asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts developed invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma after more than 5 years of follow-up, according to a multicenter retrospective study reported in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

©iStock / ThinkStockPhotos.com

Furthermore, there were no malignant conversions among patients lacking American Gastroenterological Association high-risk features – that is, mural nodules, dilated pancreatic ducts, or cysts measuring more than 3 cm, said Dr. Wilson Kwong at the University of California San Diego Health Sciences in La Jolla. “There is a very low risk of malignant transformation of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts after 5 years,” he and his associates wrote.

Up to 20% of cross-sectional imaging studies reveal incidental pancreatic cysts, the researchers noted. Cysts with neoplastic features are recommended for indefinite surveillance, even though there is little or no data on their natural history and malignant potential beyond 5- 10 years, they added. Therefore, they studied 310 patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound of pancreatic cysts at an academic medical center, a Veterans’ Affairs hospital, and two community health care systems in California between 2002 and 2010. The most common age at enrollment was 66 years, 60% of patients were women, and the median follow-up period was 87 months (range, 60 to 189 months). A total of 90% of patients were followed for 5-10 years, while 10% were followed for more than 10 years (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb 10. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.013).

 

 

Source: American Gastroenterological Association

In all, three patients developed invasive pancreatic malignancies after 6, 8, and 11 years of follow-up, for an overall conversion rate of 1%. Conversion rates by subgroup were 0% for patients with no high-risk AGA features, 1% (one case) for patients with one high-risk feature, and 15% (two cases) for patients with two high-risk features. “Because the risk of malignant transformation beyond 5 years is lower than the 1.4% mortality risk of pancreatic resection at high-volume centers, the argument can be made that discontinuing surveillance after 5 years is justified,” the researchers said. Specifically, surveillance could be discontinued after 5 years for neoplastic pancreatic cysts with up to one high-risk feature, particularly if patients have significant comorbidities that increase their risk of imminent death from other causes, they added. In contrast, healthy patients in their 60s and 70s might benefit from long-term surveillance given their longer life expectancy, they said. “Among patients with two high-risk features who remain surgically fit, discussion of surgery or surveillance beyond 5 years should be considered,” they emphasized.

A total of two patients developed high-grade dysplasia – a risk factor for invasive pancreatic cancer – but even so, the aggregate rate of cancer and high-grade dysplasia was 1.6%, only slightly higher than the fatality rate associated with pancreatic resection, the researchers noted. By excluding patients with recent acute pancreatitis (because of the likelihood of pseudocysts), they might have inadvertently excluded “a small number” of patients with pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, they added.

The University of California San Diego Health Care System supported the study. The investigators had no disclosures.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
VIDEO: Asymptomatic pancreatic cysts rarely became malignant
Display Headline
VIDEO: Asymptomatic pancreatic cysts rarely became malignant
Sections
Article Source

FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Vitals

Key clinical point: Asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts rarely become malignant, especially in the absence of multiple American Gastroenterological Association high-risk features.

Major finding: Only 1% of patients developed invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma after more than 5 years of surveillance.

Data source: A multicenter retrospective study of 310 patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound evaluations of pancreatic cysts.

Disclosures: The University of California San Diego Health Care System supported the study. The investigators had no disclosures.

VIDEO: High sensitivity–CRP, IL-6 predicted inflammatory bowel disease

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 12/08/2018 - 02:38
Display Headline
VIDEO: High sensitivity–CRP, IL-6 predicted inflammatory bowel disease

Women with high circulating levels of interleukin-6 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were at significantly greater risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) compared with those testing in the lowest quintiles, according to a prospective nested case-control study.

The findings point to a preclinical state in IBD, in which patients are not yet symptomatic but have positive serologic markers, as occurs in rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, said Dr. Paul Lochhead at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his associates. “To our knowledge, no previous study has examined prediagnostic inflammatory markers in relation to IBD risk,” the investigators added. “Characterizing preclinical inflammation in IBD could give insights into the natural history of [Crohn’s disease] and [ulcerative colitis], and might help identify potential windows for early therapeutic or preventive interventions in high-risk individuals.”

 

 

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Society

The study included 83 patients with Crohn’s disease, 90 patients with ulcerative colitis, and 344 matched controls. Patients were from two national prospective cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study, which includes female nurses aged 35-55 years at enrollment, and the Nurses’ Health Study II, which includes female nurses aged 24-42 years at enrollment. Both studies are ongoing, with follow-up rates exceeding 90%. To assemble the cohort, the researchers extracted questionnaire data and then obtained medical records for blinded review. They confirmed diagnoses of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis using standard case definitions, they said (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.01.016).

Participants testing in the highest quintiles for circulating hs-CRP and IL-6 were at greater risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis than were those in the lowest quintiles, even after accounting for age, smoking status, body mass index, oral contraceptive use, and cumulative physical activity. For IL-6, odds ratios were 4.7 for Crohn’s disease (95% confidence interval; 1.9-11.5), and 3.4 for ulcerative colitis (95% CI; 1.4-8.2). For hs-CRP, odds ratios were 2.8 for Crohn’s disease (95% CI; 1.15-6.9) and 1.8 for ulcerative colitis (95% CI; 0.8-4.0). The longest interval between testing and diagnosis of IBD was 20 years, Crohn’s disease patients were diagnosed within 10 years, and patients testing in the upper quintile for the inflammatory markers were diagnosed an average of 10.6 years later, the researchers said.

Study participants tended to be in their early 50s when first tested, which exceeds the typical age of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis onset and might limit the generalizability of the findings, the investigators said. They tried to eliminate confounding from undiagnosed baseline IBD by excluding participants diagnosed within 2 years of blood collection, they added. “The differences in overall median inflammatory marker levels between cases and control subjects in our study were small; however, differences of similar magnitude have been reported between groups with disparate outcomes in studies of cardiovascular disease,” they noted. “Moreover, when comparing extreme quintiles of median inflammatory marker levels, where risk of [Crohn’s disease] or [ulcerative colitis] was most evident, the differences were more substantial.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, and the American Gastroenterological Association. Dr. Lochhead had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed relationships with Exact Sciences, AbbVie, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, and Pozen.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Women with high circulating levels of interleukin-6 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were at significantly greater risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) compared with those testing in the lowest quintiles, according to a prospective nested case-control study.

The findings point to a preclinical state in IBD, in which patients are not yet symptomatic but have positive serologic markers, as occurs in rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, said Dr. Paul Lochhead at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his associates. “To our knowledge, no previous study has examined prediagnostic inflammatory markers in relation to IBD risk,” the investigators added. “Characterizing preclinical inflammation in IBD could give insights into the natural history of [Crohn’s disease] and [ulcerative colitis], and might help identify potential windows for early therapeutic or preventive interventions in high-risk individuals.”

 

 

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Society

The study included 83 patients with Crohn’s disease, 90 patients with ulcerative colitis, and 344 matched controls. Patients were from two national prospective cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study, which includes female nurses aged 35-55 years at enrollment, and the Nurses’ Health Study II, which includes female nurses aged 24-42 years at enrollment. Both studies are ongoing, with follow-up rates exceeding 90%. To assemble the cohort, the researchers extracted questionnaire data and then obtained medical records for blinded review. They confirmed diagnoses of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis using standard case definitions, they said (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.01.016).

Participants testing in the highest quintiles for circulating hs-CRP and IL-6 were at greater risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis than were those in the lowest quintiles, even after accounting for age, smoking status, body mass index, oral contraceptive use, and cumulative physical activity. For IL-6, odds ratios were 4.7 for Crohn’s disease (95% confidence interval; 1.9-11.5), and 3.4 for ulcerative colitis (95% CI; 1.4-8.2). For hs-CRP, odds ratios were 2.8 for Crohn’s disease (95% CI; 1.15-6.9) and 1.8 for ulcerative colitis (95% CI; 0.8-4.0). The longest interval between testing and diagnosis of IBD was 20 years, Crohn’s disease patients were diagnosed within 10 years, and patients testing in the upper quintile for the inflammatory markers were diagnosed an average of 10.6 years later, the researchers said.

Study participants tended to be in their early 50s when first tested, which exceeds the typical age of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis onset and might limit the generalizability of the findings, the investigators said. They tried to eliminate confounding from undiagnosed baseline IBD by excluding participants diagnosed within 2 years of blood collection, they added. “The differences in overall median inflammatory marker levels between cases and control subjects in our study were small; however, differences of similar magnitude have been reported between groups with disparate outcomes in studies of cardiovascular disease,” they noted. “Moreover, when comparing extreme quintiles of median inflammatory marker levels, where risk of [Crohn’s disease] or [ulcerative colitis] was most evident, the differences were more substantial.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, and the American Gastroenterological Association. Dr. Lochhead had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed relationships with Exact Sciences, AbbVie, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, and Pozen.

Women with high circulating levels of interleukin-6 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were at significantly greater risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) compared with those testing in the lowest quintiles, according to a prospective nested case-control study.

The findings point to a preclinical state in IBD, in which patients are not yet symptomatic but have positive serologic markers, as occurs in rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, said Dr. Paul Lochhead at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and his associates. “To our knowledge, no previous study has examined prediagnostic inflammatory markers in relation to IBD risk,” the investigators added. “Characterizing preclinical inflammation in IBD could give insights into the natural history of [Crohn’s disease] and [ulcerative colitis], and might help identify potential windows for early therapeutic or preventive interventions in high-risk individuals.”

 

 

SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Society

The study included 83 patients with Crohn’s disease, 90 patients with ulcerative colitis, and 344 matched controls. Patients were from two national prospective cohort studies – the Nurses’ Health Study, which includes female nurses aged 35-55 years at enrollment, and the Nurses’ Health Study II, which includes female nurses aged 24-42 years at enrollment. Both studies are ongoing, with follow-up rates exceeding 90%. To assemble the cohort, the researchers extracted questionnaire data and then obtained medical records for blinded review. They confirmed diagnoses of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis using standard case definitions, they said (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb 13. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.01.016).

Participants testing in the highest quintiles for circulating hs-CRP and IL-6 were at greater risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis than were those in the lowest quintiles, even after accounting for age, smoking status, body mass index, oral contraceptive use, and cumulative physical activity. For IL-6, odds ratios were 4.7 for Crohn’s disease (95% confidence interval; 1.9-11.5), and 3.4 for ulcerative colitis (95% CI; 1.4-8.2). For hs-CRP, odds ratios were 2.8 for Crohn’s disease (95% CI; 1.15-6.9) and 1.8 for ulcerative colitis (95% CI; 0.8-4.0). The longest interval between testing and diagnosis of IBD was 20 years, Crohn’s disease patients were diagnosed within 10 years, and patients testing in the upper quintile for the inflammatory markers were diagnosed an average of 10.6 years later, the researchers said.

Study participants tended to be in their early 50s when first tested, which exceeds the typical age of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis onset and might limit the generalizability of the findings, the investigators said. They tried to eliminate confounding from undiagnosed baseline IBD by excluding participants diagnosed within 2 years of blood collection, they added. “The differences in overall median inflammatory marker levels between cases and control subjects in our study were small; however, differences of similar magnitude have been reported between groups with disparate outcomes in studies of cardiovascular disease,” they noted. “Moreover, when comparing extreme quintiles of median inflammatory marker levels, where risk of [Crohn’s disease] or [ulcerative colitis] was most evident, the differences were more substantial.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, and the American Gastroenterological Association. Dr. Lochhead had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed relationships with Exact Sciences, AbbVie, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, and Pozen.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
VIDEO: High sensitivity–CRP, IL-6 predicted inflammatory bowel disease
Display Headline
VIDEO: High sensitivity–CRP, IL-6 predicted inflammatory bowel disease
Sections
Article Source

FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Vitals

Key clinical point: Patients might have subclinical inflammation for several years before developing inflammatory bowel disease.

Major finding: Participants testing in the highest quintiles for circulating high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 were at greater risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, compared with individuals testing in the lowest quintiles for each marker, with estimated odds ratios of 1.8, 2.8, 3.4, and 4.7.

Data source: A prospective nested case-control study of female nurses, including 83 with Crohn’s disease, 90 with ulcerative colitis, and 344 matched controls.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, and the American Gastroenterological Association. Dr. Lochhead had no disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed relationships with Exact Sciences, AbbVie, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, and Pozen.

Combination OCs tied to increased risk of surgery for Crohn’s

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 15:54
Display Headline
Combination OCs tied to increased risk of surgery for Crohn’s

Women with Crohn’s disease who were prescribed combination oral contraceptive pills for more than 3 years were 68% more likely to need gastrointestinal surgery than patients who did not use oral contraceptives, according to a national prospective cohort study reported in the June issue of Gastroenterology.

“Our data suggest the importance of carefully evaluating contraceptive options among women with established Crohn’s disease. Future studies should focus on mechanisms by which oral contraceptive use alters risk and progression,” said Dr. Hamed Khalili of Harvard Medical School in Boston and his associates at Harvard and Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.

©Thinkstock

Several studies have linked OC exposure to Crohn’s disease itself. But past studies of OCs and Crohn’s disease progression were small, retrospective, or did not adequately ascertain OC exposure, Dr. Khalili and his associates said. To help fill this gap, they identified 4,036 women with Crohn’s disease aged 16-51 years through the Swedish National Patient Register, and ascertained OC exposure by analyzing Sweden’s national prescription database (Gastroenterology. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.041).

During a median follow-up period of 58 months, 482 patients (12%) underwent surgery related to Crohn’s disease, the researchers said. Use of OCs was associated with surgery, but the link only reached statistical significance among women prescribed combination (estrogen-containing) regimens for more than 3 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.67) or for more than 900 doses (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.1-2.34). For each additional year that combination OCs were prescribed, surgery risk rose by nearly 30% (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57). Thus, one extra surgery was needed for every 83 patients who received combination OCs for at least 1 year, said the investigators. Progestin-only prescriptions did not increase the likelihood of needing surgery, and there was no link between current or prior OC exposure and the chances of being prescribed steroids, they noted.

Only one other study has linked OC exposure with Crohn’s disease progression, and it included only 158 patients followed for just a year, Dr. Khalili and his associates said. Exactly how estrogen exposure might trigger Crohn’s disease progression is unclear, but OCs have been linked to changes in intestinal barrier function, increased humoral immunity, and modulation of testosterone levels, which in turn affects cytokine function, they added. “Regardless of the potential mechanism, the effect of OCs on Crohn’s disease progression appears to be related to consistent and long-term use of these medications. Similar patterns of associations have also been reported with other chronic illnesses, such as breast cancer and cardiovascular diseases,” said the researchers. Current OC use itself might not have predicted surgery in the study because about one in four women in Sweden stop taking OCs or switch to a nonhormonal form within 6 months of being prescribed them, they added.

The work was funded by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Khalili reported receiving consulting fees from Abbvie. One coinvestigator reported consulting relationships with Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, and Pozen. The other investigators had no disclosures.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Women with Crohn’s disease who were prescribed combination oral contraceptive pills for more than 3 years were 68% more likely to need gastrointestinal surgery than patients who did not use oral contraceptives, according to a national prospective cohort study reported in the June issue of Gastroenterology.

“Our data suggest the importance of carefully evaluating contraceptive options among women with established Crohn’s disease. Future studies should focus on mechanisms by which oral contraceptive use alters risk and progression,” said Dr. Hamed Khalili of Harvard Medical School in Boston and his associates at Harvard and Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.

©Thinkstock

Several studies have linked OC exposure to Crohn’s disease itself. But past studies of OCs and Crohn’s disease progression were small, retrospective, or did not adequately ascertain OC exposure, Dr. Khalili and his associates said. To help fill this gap, they identified 4,036 women with Crohn’s disease aged 16-51 years through the Swedish National Patient Register, and ascertained OC exposure by analyzing Sweden’s national prescription database (Gastroenterology. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.041).

During a median follow-up period of 58 months, 482 patients (12%) underwent surgery related to Crohn’s disease, the researchers said. Use of OCs was associated with surgery, but the link only reached statistical significance among women prescribed combination (estrogen-containing) regimens for more than 3 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.67) or for more than 900 doses (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.1-2.34). For each additional year that combination OCs were prescribed, surgery risk rose by nearly 30% (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57). Thus, one extra surgery was needed for every 83 patients who received combination OCs for at least 1 year, said the investigators. Progestin-only prescriptions did not increase the likelihood of needing surgery, and there was no link between current or prior OC exposure and the chances of being prescribed steroids, they noted.

Only one other study has linked OC exposure with Crohn’s disease progression, and it included only 158 patients followed for just a year, Dr. Khalili and his associates said. Exactly how estrogen exposure might trigger Crohn’s disease progression is unclear, but OCs have been linked to changes in intestinal barrier function, increased humoral immunity, and modulation of testosterone levels, which in turn affects cytokine function, they added. “Regardless of the potential mechanism, the effect of OCs on Crohn’s disease progression appears to be related to consistent and long-term use of these medications. Similar patterns of associations have also been reported with other chronic illnesses, such as breast cancer and cardiovascular diseases,” said the researchers. Current OC use itself might not have predicted surgery in the study because about one in four women in Sweden stop taking OCs or switch to a nonhormonal form within 6 months of being prescribed them, they added.

The work was funded by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Khalili reported receiving consulting fees from Abbvie. One coinvestigator reported consulting relationships with Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, and Pozen. The other investigators had no disclosures.

Women with Crohn’s disease who were prescribed combination oral contraceptive pills for more than 3 years were 68% more likely to need gastrointestinal surgery than patients who did not use oral contraceptives, according to a national prospective cohort study reported in the June issue of Gastroenterology.

“Our data suggest the importance of carefully evaluating contraceptive options among women with established Crohn’s disease. Future studies should focus on mechanisms by which oral contraceptive use alters risk and progression,” said Dr. Hamed Khalili of Harvard Medical School in Boston and his associates at Harvard and Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.

©Thinkstock

Several studies have linked OC exposure to Crohn’s disease itself. But past studies of OCs and Crohn’s disease progression were small, retrospective, or did not adequately ascertain OC exposure, Dr. Khalili and his associates said. To help fill this gap, they identified 4,036 women with Crohn’s disease aged 16-51 years through the Swedish National Patient Register, and ascertained OC exposure by analyzing Sweden’s national prescription database (Gastroenterology. 2016 Feb 23. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.041).

During a median follow-up period of 58 months, 482 patients (12%) underwent surgery related to Crohn’s disease, the researchers said. Use of OCs was associated with surgery, but the link only reached statistical significance among women prescribed combination (estrogen-containing) regimens for more than 3 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.67) or for more than 900 doses (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.1-2.34). For each additional year that combination OCs were prescribed, surgery risk rose by nearly 30% (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57). Thus, one extra surgery was needed for every 83 patients who received combination OCs for at least 1 year, said the investigators. Progestin-only prescriptions did not increase the likelihood of needing surgery, and there was no link between current or prior OC exposure and the chances of being prescribed steroids, they noted.

Only one other study has linked OC exposure with Crohn’s disease progression, and it included only 158 patients followed for just a year, Dr. Khalili and his associates said. Exactly how estrogen exposure might trigger Crohn’s disease progression is unclear, but OCs have been linked to changes in intestinal barrier function, increased humoral immunity, and modulation of testosterone levels, which in turn affects cytokine function, they added. “Regardless of the potential mechanism, the effect of OCs on Crohn’s disease progression appears to be related to consistent and long-term use of these medications. Similar patterns of associations have also been reported with other chronic illnesses, such as breast cancer and cardiovascular diseases,” said the researchers. Current OC use itself might not have predicted surgery in the study because about one in four women in Sweden stop taking OCs or switch to a nonhormonal form within 6 months of being prescribed them, they added.

The work was funded by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Khalili reported receiving consulting fees from Abbvie. One coinvestigator reported consulting relationships with Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, and Pozen. The other investigators had no disclosures.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Combination OCs tied to increased risk of surgery for Crohn’s
Display Headline
Combination OCs tied to increased risk of surgery for Crohn’s
Sections
Article Source

FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Long-term use of combination oral contraceptives significantly increased the risk of surgery among women with Crohn’s disease.

Major finding: Women who used combination OCs for more than 3 years were 68% more likely to need surgery than were nonusers.

Data source: A prospective national registry study of 4,036 women with Crohn’s disease.

Disclosures: The study was funded by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Khalili reported receiving consulting fees from Abbvie. One coinvestigator reported consulting relationships with Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, and Pozen. The other investigators had no disclosures.

In Middle of Trip, Woman Falls

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 07/09/2018 - 10:49
Display Headline
In Middle of Trip, Woman Falls

Answer
The radiograph has several findings, one of which is a nondisplaced proximal fibula fracture. In addition, there is a moderate suprapatellar joint effusion. The patient also has fairly advanced tricompartment degenerative arthrosis. (To review, the tricompartment comprises all three anatomic areas of the knee: the patellofemoral, lateral tibiofemoral, and medial tibiofemoral joints.)

The patient was placed in a knee immobilizer, and orthopedic evaluation was coordinated .
References

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Nandan R. Hichkad, PA-C, MMSc, practices at the Georgia Neurosurgical Institute in Macon.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
20,53
Legacy Keywords
radiology, fracture, tricompartment, arthrosis
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Nandan R. Hichkad, PA-C, MMSc, practices at the Georgia Neurosurgical Institute in Macon.

Author and Disclosure Information

Nandan R. Hichkad, PA-C, MMSc, practices at the Georgia Neurosurgical Institute in Macon.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

Answer
The radiograph has several findings, one of which is a nondisplaced proximal fibula fracture. In addition, there is a moderate suprapatellar joint effusion. The patient also has fairly advanced tricompartment degenerative arthrosis. (To review, the tricompartment comprises all three anatomic areas of the knee: the patellofemoral, lateral tibiofemoral, and medial tibiofemoral joints.)

The patient was placed in a knee immobilizer, and orthopedic evaluation was coordinated .

Answer
The radiograph has several findings, one of which is a nondisplaced proximal fibula fracture. In addition, there is a moderate suprapatellar joint effusion. The patient also has fairly advanced tricompartment degenerative arthrosis. (To review, the tricompartment comprises all three anatomic areas of the knee: the patellofemoral, lateral tibiofemoral, and medial tibiofemoral joints.)

The patient was placed in a knee immobilizer, and orthopedic evaluation was coordinated .
References

References

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(6)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(6)
Page Number
20,53
Page Number
20,53
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
In Middle of Trip, Woman Falls
Display Headline
In Middle of Trip, Woman Falls
Legacy Keywords
radiology, fracture, tricompartment, arthrosis
Legacy Keywords
radiology, fracture, tricompartment, arthrosis
Sections
Questionnaire Body
In Middle of Trip, Woman Falls

A 70-year-old woman presents to your emergency department for evaluation of right knee pain secondary to a fall. She and her husband, in the process of driving from Florida to their home in California, stopped for the night in your town. The patient states that shortly after getting up this morning, she tripped, lost her balance, and fell. All her weight landed on her right knee; she says it is now “extremely painful” to bear weight on that leg. She also twisted her right ankle, causing additional discomfort. Her medical history is significant for hypertension, which is controlled by medication. On physical exam, you note an elderly female who is uncomfortable but in no obvious distress. Inspection of her right knee shows no obvious deformity but a moderate amount of swelling. The patient has limited range of motion secondary to the swelling. She also has moderate tenderness circumferentially around the knee. There is additional swelling and mild bruising on both the medial and lateral aspects of the right ankle. You obtain a radiograph of the right knee. What is your impression?
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Moles: Their Role in Skin Cancer Diagnosis

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 12/13/2016 - 10:27
Display Headline
Moles: Their Role in Skin Cancer Diagnosis

ANSWER
The correct answer is none of the above (choice “d”). These lesions are all intradermal nevi, which have little, if any, risk for malignant transformation. Deeper nevi are considered quite safe, unless significant change has occurred. Despite the unlikelihood, however, it is risky to declare a 0% chance of skin cancer.

DISCUSSION
Slow growth and increased prominence are not the kinds of changes to look for in skin lesions. Rather, look for marked asymmetry (eg, the growth of a new, darker, macular component) or other change in color or consistency.

Hairs on these lesions are quite normal and are actually reassuring in confirming their benign nature. Skin cancers seldom support hair growth.

Most melanomas don’t come from moles. Instead, they are “de novo” lesions, literally coming from nothing, out of clear skin. It is true that the more moles someone has, the greater his or her risk for skin cancer, though not necessarily in one of the moles. When melanomas do develop from nevi (a collection of a certain type of melanocyte), this usually occurs in superficial types, such as compound or junctional nevi. From an objective standpoint, in this patient’s case, family history means nothing.

What does matter is to pay as much attention to the owner as to the lesion. The more fair-skinned and sun-damaged (freckles, blue eyes, red hair) the patient is, the more worrisome a lesion can be.

This patient had none of those traits, and she will likely have one of her lesions surgically excised to ensure she’s satisfied with the resulting scar. Of course, the tissue sample will be sent for pathologic examination, as any specimen should be.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA, ­practices at Dawkins ­Dermatology Clinic in Oklahoma City. He is also the founder of the Society of ­Dermatology ­Physician ­Assistants.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
19-20
Legacy Keywords
dermatology, intradermal nevi, sun damage
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA, ­practices at Dawkins ­Dermatology Clinic in Oklahoma City. He is also the founder of the Society of ­Dermatology ­Physician ­Assistants.

Author and Disclosure Information

 

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA

Joe R. Monroe, MPAS, PA, ­practices at Dawkins ­Dermatology Clinic in Oklahoma City. He is also the founder of the Society of ­Dermatology ­Physician ­Assistants.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

ANSWER
The correct answer is none of the above (choice “d”). These lesions are all intradermal nevi, which have little, if any, risk for malignant transformation. Deeper nevi are considered quite safe, unless significant change has occurred. Despite the unlikelihood, however, it is risky to declare a 0% chance of skin cancer.

DISCUSSION
Slow growth and increased prominence are not the kinds of changes to look for in skin lesions. Rather, look for marked asymmetry (eg, the growth of a new, darker, macular component) or other change in color or consistency.

Hairs on these lesions are quite normal and are actually reassuring in confirming their benign nature. Skin cancers seldom support hair growth.

Most melanomas don’t come from moles. Instead, they are “de novo” lesions, literally coming from nothing, out of clear skin. It is true that the more moles someone has, the greater his or her risk for skin cancer, though not necessarily in one of the moles. When melanomas do develop from nevi (a collection of a certain type of melanocyte), this usually occurs in superficial types, such as compound or junctional nevi. From an objective standpoint, in this patient’s case, family history means nothing.

What does matter is to pay as much attention to the owner as to the lesion. The more fair-skinned and sun-damaged (freckles, blue eyes, red hair) the patient is, the more worrisome a lesion can be.

This patient had none of those traits, and she will likely have one of her lesions surgically excised to ensure she’s satisfied with the resulting scar. Of course, the tissue sample will be sent for pathologic examination, as any specimen should be.

ANSWER
The correct answer is none of the above (choice “d”). These lesions are all intradermal nevi, which have little, if any, risk for malignant transformation. Deeper nevi are considered quite safe, unless significant change has occurred. Despite the unlikelihood, however, it is risky to declare a 0% chance of skin cancer.

DISCUSSION
Slow growth and increased prominence are not the kinds of changes to look for in skin lesions. Rather, look for marked asymmetry (eg, the growth of a new, darker, macular component) or other change in color or consistency.

Hairs on these lesions are quite normal and are actually reassuring in confirming their benign nature. Skin cancers seldom support hair growth.

Most melanomas don’t come from moles. Instead, they are “de novo” lesions, literally coming from nothing, out of clear skin. It is true that the more moles someone has, the greater his or her risk for skin cancer, though not necessarily in one of the moles. When melanomas do develop from nevi (a collection of a certain type of melanocyte), this usually occurs in superficial types, such as compound or junctional nevi. From an objective standpoint, in this patient’s case, family history means nothing.

What does matter is to pay as much attention to the owner as to the lesion. The more fair-skinned and sun-damaged (freckles, blue eyes, red hair) the patient is, the more worrisome a lesion can be.

This patient had none of those traits, and she will likely have one of her lesions surgically excised to ensure she’s satisfied with the resulting scar. Of course, the tissue sample will be sent for pathologic examination, as any specimen should be.

Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(6)
Issue
Clinician Reviews - 26(6)
Page Number
19-20
Page Number
19-20
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Moles: Their Role in Skin Cancer Diagnosis
Display Headline
Moles: Their Role in Skin Cancer Diagnosis
Legacy Keywords
dermatology, intradermal nevi, sun damage
Legacy Keywords
dermatology, intradermal nevi, sun damage
Sections
Questionnaire Body

Moles: Their Role in Skin Cancer Diagnosis

 

 

A 39-year-old woman self-refers for evaluation of moles she’s had on her face “all her life.” They have become more prominent with age, and many now have hairs growing in them. They are often traumatized by contact with fingernails or clothing. The patient worries that they might “turn into cancer” the way her grandfather’s moles did. The patient looks her stated age, is moderately overweight, and has more than her share of moles (some of which exceed 6 mm in diameter.) For the most part, they are skin-colored, and several are hair-bearing. Further questioning reveals that her moles manifested during puberty and have not been present “all her life.” Her type II skin is otherwise unremarkable and free of sun damage.

 

Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

E-cigarettes: How “safe” are they?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/14/2019 - 14:33
Display Headline
E-cigarettes: How “safe” are they?
PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Inform patients that e-cigarette vapors contain toxic substances, including the heavy metals lead, cadmium, and nickel. A
› Educate all patients—particularly young people and those who are pregnant or lactating—about the potential health risks of e-cigarettes. B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become increasingly popular over the last decade. Although they are perceived by many to be safer than traditional cigarettes, many of the devices still contain nicotine, and inhaling their vapors exposes users to toxic substances, including lead, cadmium, and nickel—heavy metals that are associated with significant health problems.1 (For more on how e-cigarettes work, see “Cigarettes vs e-cigarettes: How does the experience (and cost) compare?”)

In addition, many people use e-cigarettes as a means to stop smoking, but few who do so achieve abstinence.2,3 They frequently end up utilizing both, increasing their health risks by exposing themselves to the dangers of 2 products instead of one.1

Further complicating the issue is that the manufacture and distribution of e-cigarettes has not been well regulated. Without regulation, there is no way to know with certainty how much nicotine the devices contain and what else is in them.

Things, however, are changing. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that e-cigarettes and other tobacco products like cigars and hookahs will now be regulated in the same way the government regulates tobacco cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.4 The rule will not take effect immediately because companies requested time to comply, but once it is enacted, packaging will be required to list what the products contain, among other changes.

Keeping up on the latest information on e-cigarettes is now—and will continue to be—important as family physicians are increasingly asked about them. What follows is a review of what we know about their potential risks.

 

© 2016 iStock

A nicotine system developed by a pharmacist

E-cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems, were patented in 2003 by a Chinese pharmacist.5 Since their introduction to North America and Europe in 2007, the devices have become known by over 400 different brand names.6 Consumption among adults doubled by 2012, and by 2014, about 4% of US adults used e-cigarettes every day or some days.7 Many of them are dual users of tobacco and electronic cigarettes. In fact, Jenkins and colleagues reports in this issue of JFP (see "E-cigarettes: Who's using them and why?") that over half of cigarette smokers (52%) in their study use e-cigarettes, usually to either lower their cigarette consumption or aid in smoking cessation. (Throughout this article, we will use “cigarettes” and “smoking” to refer to the use of traditional tobacco cigarettes.)

In addition to concern over an increase in use among the general population, there is significant concern about the increase in e-cigarette use among US middle and high school students.1,8,9 In 2015, e-cigarettes were the most commonly used smoking product among middle and high school students, with 620,000 middle school students and nearly 2.4 million high school students using the battery-powered devices in the past 30 days.10

Many factors have contributed to the growing popularity of e-cigarettes.

  • Perceived safety. With tobacco’s dangers so thoroughly documented, many advertising campaigns tout e-cigarettes as less dangerous than conventional cigarettes in terms of their ability to cause cardiac and lung diseases and low birth weights. This is largely because e-cigarettes do not produce the combustion products of tar, ash, or carbon monoxide. In addition, many consumers are mistakenly less fearful about the nicotine added to many e-cigarettes.
  • Expectation that it helps smokers quit. Many smokers view e-cigarettes as an aid to smoking cessation.6 In fact, testimonials of efficacy in tobacco cessation abound in promotional materials and on the Web, and e-cigarettes are recommended by some physicians as a means to quit or lessen smoking of tobacco cigarettes.11
  • Wide availability and opportunities for use. The use of electronic nicotine delivery devices is sometimes permitted in places where smoking of conventional cigarettes is banned, although rules vary widely in different parts of the country. In addition, e-cigarettes are readily available for purchase on the Internet without age verification.
  • Extensive advertising. There are increasing concerns that advertising campaigns unduly target adolescents, young adults, and women.12-155 In addition to advertising, the media and social influences play significant roles in young people’s experimentation with “vaping,” the term for inhaling electronic cigarette aerosols.14,15
  • Regulation, legislation remain controversial. Currently, e-cigarettes are not required to be tested before marketing,16 but that may change with the FDA’s new regulations. The British National Public Health body, Public Health England, has documented public health benefits of e-cigarettes when used as a way to quit smoking, and provides evidence that the devices are less dangerous than traditional cigarettes.17 But this issue and public policy are the subject of ongoing debate. In 2015, the United Kingdom made it illegal to sell e-cigarettes or e-liquids to people younger than 18 years of age and urged child-proof packaging.

What’s “in” an e-cigarette—and are the ingredients toxic?

Because e-cigarettes are relatively new to the global marketplace, little research exists regarding the long-term effects and safety of their use, especially among habitual users.

Vapor/refills. E-liquids may contain a variety of substances because they have been largely unregulated, but they generally include some combination of nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and flavorings. In fact, up to 7000 flavors are available,6 including such kid-friendly flavors as chocolate, cherry crush, and bubble gum.

Since many individuals continue to use traditional and electronic cigarettes, they end up in double jeopardy of toxicity through exposure to the dangers of both.

When the refills do contain nicotine, users generally derive less of the substance from the electronic devices than they do from a conventional cigarette. Researchers found that individual puffs from an e-cigarette contained 0 to 35 µg nicotine per puff.1,18 Assuming an amount at the high end of the spectrum (30 µg nicotine), it would take about 30 puffs of an e-cigarette to derive the same amount of nicotine (1 mg) typically delivered by a conventional cigarette.

The chemical make-up of the vapor and the biologic effects on animal models have been investigated using 42 different liquid refills.19,20 All contained potentially harmful compounds, but the levels were within exposure limits authorized by the FDA. These potentially dangerous chemicals include the known toxins formaldehyde, acrolein, and hydrocarbons.20

An inflammatory response to the inhalation of the vapors was demonstrated in mouse lungs; exposure to e-cigarette aerosols reduced lung glutathione—an important enzyme in maintaining oxidation-reduction balance—to a degree similar to that of cigarette smoke exposure.20 Less of the enzyme facilitates increased pulmonary inflammation.

In addition, human lung cells release pro-inflammatory cytokines when exposed to e-cigarette aerosols.20 Other health risks include:

Harm to indoor air quality/secondhand exposure. Even though e-cigarettes do not emit smoke, bystanders are exposed to the aerosol or vapor exhaled by the user, and researchers have found varying levels of such substances as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, isoprene, acetic acid, acetone, propanol, propylene glycol, and nicotine in the air. However, it is unclear at this time whether the ultra-fine particles in the e-cigarette vapor have health effects commensurate with the emissions of conventional cigarettes.1,21,22

Cartridge refill ingestion by children. Accidental nicotine poisonings, particularly among children drawn to the colors, flavors, and scents of the e-liquids, have been problematic. In 2014, for example, over 3500 exposures occurred and more than half of those were in children younger than 6 years of age. (Exposure is defined as contact with the substance in some way including ingestion, inhalation, absorption by the skin/eyes, etc; not all exposures are poisonings or overdoses).23 Although incidence has tapered off somewhat, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that there were 623 exposures across all age groups between January 1, 2016 and April 30, 2016.23

Many people use e-cigarettes as a means to stop smoking, but few who do so achieve abstinence.

Environmental impact of discarded e-cigarettes. Discarded e-cigarettes filling our landfills is a new and emerging public health concern. Their batteries, as do all batteries, pollute the land and water and have the potential to leach lead into the environment.24 Similarly, incompletely used liquid cartridges and refills may contain nicotine and heavy metals, which add to these risks.24

Explosions. Fires and explosions have been documented with e-cigarette use, mostly due to malfunctioning lithium-ion batteries.25 Thermal injuries to the face and hands can be significant.

Heavy metals. The presence of lead, cadmium, and nickel in inhaled e-cigarette vapor is another area of significant concern, particularly for younger people who might have long-term exposure.1 All 3 heavy metals are known to be toxic to humans, and safe levels of inhalation have not been established.

Inhalation and/or ingestion of lead, in particular, can cause severe neurologic damage, especially to the developing brains of children.26 Lead also results in hematologic dysfunction. Because of the risks associated with inhalation of this heavy metal, the substance was removed from gasoline years ago.

Inhaled cadmium induces kidney, liver, bone, and respiratory tract pathology27 and can cause organ failure, hypertension, anemias, fractures, osteoporosis, and/or osteomalacia.28 And inhaling nickel produces an inflammatory pulmonary reaction.29

Pregnancy/lactation. Since no clear evidence exists on the safety of e-cigarette use during pregnancy, women should avoid exposure to these vapors during the entire perinatal period. Similarly, the effects of e-cigarettes on infants who are breastfeeding are not established. Pregnant and breastfeeding women should not replace cigarettes with e-cigarettes.30,31 For pregnant women who smoke, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) advises using only behavioral methods to stop cigarette use.32 And until more information becomes available, exposing infants and young children to e-cigarette vapor during breastfeeding is not recommended.

On the flip side, without tobacco, tar, ash, or carbon monoxide, e-cigarettes may have some advantages when compared with the use of traditional cigarettes, but that has not been substantiated.

 

 

SIDEBAR
Cigarettes vs e-cigarettes: How does the experience (and cost) compare?

If you were to ask a smoker to describe how cigarette smoking compares to using e-cigarettes, he or she would probably tell you that while the process of drawing on an e-cigarette is similar to that of a conventional cigarette, the experience in terms of reaching that state of relaxation or getting that “smoker’s high” is not.

In fact, a recent national survey of current and former smokers found that more than three-quarters of current smokers (77%) rated e-cigarettes less satisfying than conventional cigarettes and stopped using them.1 “Being less harmful” was the most highly rated reason for continuing to use the devices among people who switched from conventional to e-cigarettes.

How do they work? E-cigarettes do not burn anything and users do not light them. E-cigarettes work in much the same way as a smoke or fog machine. They use battery power (usually a rechargeable lithium battery) to heat a solution—usually containing nicotine, flavorings, and other chemicals—to the point that it turns into vapor. Much of whatever substances are in the vapor enter the bloodstream through the buccal mucosa, rather than the lungs.

Devices typically have an on/off button or switch, an atomizer containing a heating coil, a battery, and an LED light, which is designed to simulate a burning cigarette. A sensor detects when a user takes a drag and activates the atomizer and light. Some of the devices can be charged with a USB cord.

Because e-cigarettes don’t burn anything, they don’t have any smoke. They also don’t have any tar, ash, carbon monoxide, or odor (except perhaps a faint, short-lived scent matching the flavor liquid chosen). But the issues of second-hand exposure and effects on air quality are still being investigated.

With over 500 brands available, devices generally fall into one of 3 categories:2

  • Cigalikes: About the same size and shape of a conventional cigarette, these cigarette look-alikes may come pre-filled with about a day’s worth of liquid and then may be discarded, or they may be non-disposable and have a replaceable cartridge.

     

 

  • eGo’s: Also known as "vape pens," these devices tend to be longer and wider than cigalikes, have a more powerful battery, and usually are refillable or have a replaceable cartridge.

  • Mods: Short for “modules,” these “vaporizers” tend to be the largest and most expensive type of e-cigarette. They may be refilled with e-liquid or accept replaceable cartridges and have even more powerful batteries.

What do they cost? A pack of cigarettes (containing 20 cigarettes) costs anywhere from $5 to $14, depending on where one lives.3 The price of e-cigarette devices starts at about $8 and can climb higher than $100. A 5-pack of flavor cartridges or a refill tank of e-liquid (which may last as long as about 150 cigarettes) costs about $10 to $15.4

To put this in perspective, a pack-a-day smoker in New York might spend about $5000 a year on cigarettes ($14 per pack x 365 days in a year), whereas someone who uses an e-cigarette device ($10) plus a refill tank per week ($14 x 52 weeks per year) will spend about $740 a year. (The actual cost will be higher because atomizers or devices as a whole must be replaced periodically, with some lasting only days and others lasting weeks or months, depending largely on how often one uses them. Although the cost of atomizers ranges widely, many can be found for $3-$5.)

Of course, the difference between cigarettes and e-cigarettes will be less dramatic in states where cigarettes are cheaper.

References

1.  Pechacek TF, Nayak P, Gregory KR, et al. The potential that electronic delivery systems can be a disruptive technology: results from a national survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016. Available at: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/05/03/ntr.ntw102.abstract. Accessed May 13, 2016.

2.  Center for Environmental Health. A smoking gun: cancer-causing chemicals in e-cigarettes. Available at: http://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/CEH-2015-report_A-Smoking-Gun_-Cancer-Causing-Chemicals-in-E-Cigarettes_alt.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2016.

3.  Holmes H. The price of being an American. What a pack of cigarettes costs, in every state. August 28, 2015. Available at: http://www.theawl.com/2015/08/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-in-every-state. Accessed May 11, 2016.

4.  Blu. How much do e-cigs cost? E-cig & vapor cigarette prices. Available at: http://www.blucigs.com/much-e-cigs-cost/. Accessed May 13, 2016.

 

 

Don’t substitute one form of nicotine for another

The presence of lead, cadmium, and nickel in inhaled e-cigarette vapor is an area of significant concern.

The USPSTF has not determined the benefit-to-harm ratio of using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid, but recommends prescribing behavioral techniques and/or pharmacologic alternatives instead.32 Because the devices have been promoted as an aid to smoking cessation, intention to quit using tobacco products is a reason often stated for utilizing e-cigarettes.2,33,34 Indeed, use of e-cigarettes is much more likely among those who already utilize tobacco products.35-37

At least one study reports that e-cigarettes have efficacy similar to nicotine patches in achieving smoking abstinence among smokers who want to quit.38 Former smokers who used e-cigarettes to quit smoking reported fewer withdrawal symptoms than those who used nicotine skin patches.39 In addition, former smokers were more likely to endorse e-cigarettes than nicotine patches as a tobacco cigarette cessation aid. Significant reduction in tobacco smoke exposure has been demonstrated in dual users of tobacco and electronic cigarettes;40,41 however, both of these nicotine delivery systems sustain nicotine addiction.

Despite many ongoing studies to determine if e-cigarettes are useful as a smoking cessation aid, the results vary widely and are inconclusive at this time.42

E-cigarettes do not increase long-term tobacco abstinence

Contrary to popular belief, research shows that e-cigarette use among smokers is not associated with long-term tobacco abstinence.1 E-cigarette users, however, may make more attempts to quit smoking compared with smokers not using them.43 In addition, even though there is some evidence that e-cigarettes help smokers reduce the number of cigarettes smoked per day, simply reducing the daily number of cigarettes does not equate with safety.44 Smoking just one to 4 cigarettes per day poses 3 times the risk of myocardial infarction and lung cancer compared with not smoking.44 And since many individuals continue to use traditional and electronic cigarettes, they end up in double jeopardy of toxicity through exposure to the dangers of both.

A gateway to other substances of abuse?

Pregnant and breastfeeding women should not replace tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes.

There is also fear that nicotine exposure via e-cigarettes, especially in young people, serves as a “gateway” to tobacco consumption and other substance abuses, and increases the risk for nicotine addiction.34 Such nicotine-induced effects are a result of changes in brain chemistry, and have been documented in humans and animals.34

These concerns about negative health consequences, combined with the fact that e-cigarettes are undocumented as a smoking cessation aid, add urgency to the need for legislative and regulatory actions that hopefully can curb all nicotine exposures, particularly for our nation’s youth. In the meantime, it is important for physicians to advise patients—and the public—about the risks of e-cigarettes and the importance of quitting all forms of nicotine inhalation because nicotine—regardless of how it is delivered—is still an addictive drug.

CORRESPONDENCE
Steven Lippmann, MD, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 401 E. Chestnut Street, Suite 610, Louisville, KY 40202; [email protected].

References

1. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation. 2014;129:1972-1986.

2. Vickerman KA, Carpenter KM, Altman T, et al. Use of electronic cigarettes among state tobacco cessation quitline callers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:1787-1791.

3. Grana R, Popova L, Ling P. A longitudinal analysis of electronic cigarette use and smoking cessation. JAMA Int Med. 2014;174:812-813.

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vaporizers, e-cigarettes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredientsComponents/ucm456610.htm. Accessed May 12, 2016.

5. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. Background paper on E-cigarettes (electronic nicotine delivery systems). Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, a WHO Collaborating Center on Tobacco Control. Prepared for World Health Organization Tobacco Free Initiative. December 2013. Available at: http://pvw.escholarship.org/uc/item/13p2b72n. Accessed March 31, 2014.

6. Zhu SH, Sun JY, Bonnevie E, et al. Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tob Control. 2014;23:iii3-iii9.

7. Electronic Cigarette Use Among Adults: United States, 2014. NCHStats: A blog of the National Center for Health Statistics. Available at: http://nchstats.com/2015/10/28/electronic-cigarette-use-among-adults-united-states-2014/. Accessed April 22, 2016.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E-cigarette use more than doubles among U.S. middle and high school students from 2011-2012. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0905-ecigarette-use.html. Accessed April 22, 2016.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notes from the field: electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students — United States, 2011-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62:729-730.

10. Singh T, Arrazola RA, Corey CG, et al. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rpt. 2016;65:361-367.

11. Kandra KL, Ranney LM, Lee JG, et al. Physicians’ attitudes and use of e-cigarettes as cessation devices, North Carolina, 2013. PloS One. 2014;9:e103462.

12. Schraufnagel DE. Electronic cigarettes: vulnerability of youth. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2015;28:2-6.

13. White J, Li J, Newcombe R, et al. Tripling use of electronic cigarettes among New Zealand adolescents between 2012 and 2014. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56:522-528.

14. Duke JC, Lee YO, Kim AE, et al. Exposure to electronic cigarette television advertisements among youth and young adults. Pediatrics. 2014;134:29-36.

15. Huang J, Kornfield R, Szczypka G, et al. A cross-sectional examination of marketing of electronic cigarettes on Twitter. Tob Control. 2014;23:iii26-iii30.

16. Rojewski AM, Coleman N, Toll BA. Position Statement: Emerging policy issues regarding electronic nicotine delivery systems: a need for regulation. Society of Behavioral Medicine. 2016. Available at: http://www.sbm.org/UserFiles/file/e-cig-statement_v2_lores.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2016.

17. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, et al. E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update. Accessed April 22, 2016.

18. Goniewicz ML, Kuma T, Gawron M, et al. Nicotine levels in electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:158-166.

19. Varlet V, Farsalinos K, Augsburger M, et al. Toxicity assessment of refill liquids for electronic cigarettes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:4796-4815.

20. Lerner CA, Sundar IK, Yao H, et al. Vapors produced by electronic cigarettes and e-juices with flavorings induce toxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory response in lung epithelial cells and in mouse lung. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0116732.

21. Schober W, Szendrei K, Matzen W, et al. Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014;217:628-637.

22. Schripp T, Markewitz D, Uhde E, et al. Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping? Indoor Air. 2013;23:25-31.

23. The American Association of Poison Control Centers. E-cigarettes and liquid nicotine. Available at: http://www.aapcc.org/alerts/e-cigarettes/. Accessed May 12, 2016.

24. Krause MJ, Townsend TG. Hazardous waste status of discarded electronic cigarettes. Waste Manag. 2015;39:57-62.

25. U.S. Fire Administration. Electronic cigarette fires and explosions. October 2014. Available at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/electronic_cigarettes.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2016.

26. Skerfving S, Löfmark L, Lundh T, et al. Late effects of low blood lead concentrations in children on school performance and cognitive functions. Neurotoxicology. 2015;49:114-120.

27. Bernhoft RA. Cadmium toxicity and treatment. Scientific World Journal. 2013;394652.

28. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Case studies in environmental medicine (CSEM) Cadmium Toxicity. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/cadmium/docs/cadmium.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2016.

29. Das KK, Buchner V. Effect of nickel exposure on peripheral tissues: role of oxidative stress in toxicity and possible protection by ascorbic acid. Rev Environ Health. 2007;22:157-173.

30. England LJ, Bunnell RE, Pechacek TF, et al. Nicotine and the developing human: a neglected element in the electronic cigarette debate. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49:286-293.

31. Suter MA, Mastrobattista J, Sachs M, et al. Is there evidence for potential harm of electronic cigarette use in pregnancy? Birth defects research. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015;103:186-195.

32. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Recommendation Statement. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults and pregnant women: behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-recommendation-statement147/tobacco-use-in-adults-and-pregnant-women-counseling-and-interventions1. Accessed March 22, 2016.

33. Peters EN, Harrell PT, Hendricks PS, et al. Electronic cigarettes in adults in outpatient substance use treatment: awareness, perceptions, use, and reasons for use. Am J Addict. 2015;24:233-239.

34. Kandel ER, Kandel DB. A molecular basis for nicotine as a gateway drug. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:932-943.

35. King BA, Patel R, Nguyen KH, et al. Trends in awareness and use of electronic cigarettes among US Adults, 2010-2013. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17:219-227.

36. McMillen RC, Gottlieb MA, Shaefer RM, et al. Trends in electronic cigarette use among U.S. adults: use is increasing in both smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;1195-1202.

37. Lee S, Grana RA, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarette use among Korean adolescents: a cross-sectional study of market penetration, dual use, and relationship to quit attempts and former smoking. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54:684-690.

38. Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382:1629-1637.

39. Nelson VA, Goniewicz ML, Beard E, et al. Comparison of the characteristics of long-term users of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy: a cross-sectional survey of English ex-smokers and current smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;153:300-305.

40. Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, et al. Efficiency and safety of an electronic cigarette (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e66317.

41. Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Morjaria JB, et al. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:786.

42. Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016. [Epub ahead of print].

43. Brose LS, Hitchman SC, Brown J, et al. Is the use of electronic cigarettes while smoking associated with smoking cessation attempts, cessation and reduced cigarette consumption? A survey with a 1-year follow-up. Addiction. 2015;110:1160-1168.

44. Bjartveit K, Tverdal A. Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day. Tob Control. 2005;14:315-320.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Lee Smith, MD
Kanwarjeet Brar, MD
Kavitha Srinivasan, MD
Manasa Enja, MD
Steven Lippmann, MD

University of Louisville School of Medicine, Ky
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
380-385
Legacy Keywords
e-cigarettes, nicotine, safety, cessation, toxic, respiratory, addiction/addictive substances, Lee Smith, Kanwarjeet Brar, Kavitha Srinivasan, Manasa Enja, Steven Lippmann
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Lee Smith, MD
Kanwarjeet Brar, MD
Kavitha Srinivasan, MD
Manasa Enja, MD
Steven Lippmann, MD

University of Louisville School of Medicine, Ky
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Lee Smith, MD
Kanwarjeet Brar, MD
Kavitha Srinivasan, MD
Manasa Enja, MD
Steven Lippmann, MD

University of Louisville School of Medicine, Ky
[email protected]

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles
PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Inform patients that e-cigarette vapors contain toxic substances, including the heavy metals lead, cadmium, and nickel. A
› Educate all patients—particularly young people and those who are pregnant or lactating—about the potential health risks of e-cigarettes. B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become increasingly popular over the last decade. Although they are perceived by many to be safer than traditional cigarettes, many of the devices still contain nicotine, and inhaling their vapors exposes users to toxic substances, including lead, cadmium, and nickel—heavy metals that are associated with significant health problems.1 (For more on how e-cigarettes work, see “Cigarettes vs e-cigarettes: How does the experience (and cost) compare?”)

In addition, many people use e-cigarettes as a means to stop smoking, but few who do so achieve abstinence.2,3 They frequently end up utilizing both, increasing their health risks by exposing themselves to the dangers of 2 products instead of one.1

Further complicating the issue is that the manufacture and distribution of e-cigarettes has not been well regulated. Without regulation, there is no way to know with certainty how much nicotine the devices contain and what else is in them.

Things, however, are changing. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that e-cigarettes and other tobacco products like cigars and hookahs will now be regulated in the same way the government regulates tobacco cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.4 The rule will not take effect immediately because companies requested time to comply, but once it is enacted, packaging will be required to list what the products contain, among other changes.

Keeping up on the latest information on e-cigarettes is now—and will continue to be—important as family physicians are increasingly asked about them. What follows is a review of what we know about their potential risks.

 

© 2016 iStock

A nicotine system developed by a pharmacist

E-cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems, were patented in 2003 by a Chinese pharmacist.5 Since their introduction to North America and Europe in 2007, the devices have become known by over 400 different brand names.6 Consumption among adults doubled by 2012, and by 2014, about 4% of US adults used e-cigarettes every day or some days.7 Many of them are dual users of tobacco and electronic cigarettes. In fact, Jenkins and colleagues reports in this issue of JFP (see "E-cigarettes: Who's using them and why?") that over half of cigarette smokers (52%) in their study use e-cigarettes, usually to either lower their cigarette consumption or aid in smoking cessation. (Throughout this article, we will use “cigarettes” and “smoking” to refer to the use of traditional tobacco cigarettes.)

In addition to concern over an increase in use among the general population, there is significant concern about the increase in e-cigarette use among US middle and high school students.1,8,9 In 2015, e-cigarettes were the most commonly used smoking product among middle and high school students, with 620,000 middle school students and nearly 2.4 million high school students using the battery-powered devices in the past 30 days.10

Many factors have contributed to the growing popularity of e-cigarettes.

  • Perceived safety. With tobacco’s dangers so thoroughly documented, many advertising campaigns tout e-cigarettes as less dangerous than conventional cigarettes in terms of their ability to cause cardiac and lung diseases and low birth weights. This is largely because e-cigarettes do not produce the combustion products of tar, ash, or carbon monoxide. In addition, many consumers are mistakenly less fearful about the nicotine added to many e-cigarettes.
  • Expectation that it helps smokers quit. Many smokers view e-cigarettes as an aid to smoking cessation.6 In fact, testimonials of efficacy in tobacco cessation abound in promotional materials and on the Web, and e-cigarettes are recommended by some physicians as a means to quit or lessen smoking of tobacco cigarettes.11
  • Wide availability and opportunities for use. The use of electronic nicotine delivery devices is sometimes permitted in places where smoking of conventional cigarettes is banned, although rules vary widely in different parts of the country. In addition, e-cigarettes are readily available for purchase on the Internet without age verification.
  • Extensive advertising. There are increasing concerns that advertising campaigns unduly target adolescents, young adults, and women.12-155 In addition to advertising, the media and social influences play significant roles in young people’s experimentation with “vaping,” the term for inhaling electronic cigarette aerosols.14,15
  • Regulation, legislation remain controversial. Currently, e-cigarettes are not required to be tested before marketing,16 but that may change with the FDA’s new regulations. The British National Public Health body, Public Health England, has documented public health benefits of e-cigarettes when used as a way to quit smoking, and provides evidence that the devices are less dangerous than traditional cigarettes.17 But this issue and public policy are the subject of ongoing debate. In 2015, the United Kingdom made it illegal to sell e-cigarettes or e-liquids to people younger than 18 years of age and urged child-proof packaging.

What’s “in” an e-cigarette—and are the ingredients toxic?

Because e-cigarettes are relatively new to the global marketplace, little research exists regarding the long-term effects and safety of their use, especially among habitual users.

Vapor/refills. E-liquids may contain a variety of substances because they have been largely unregulated, but they generally include some combination of nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and flavorings. In fact, up to 7000 flavors are available,6 including such kid-friendly flavors as chocolate, cherry crush, and bubble gum.

Since many individuals continue to use traditional and electronic cigarettes, they end up in double jeopardy of toxicity through exposure to the dangers of both.

When the refills do contain nicotine, users generally derive less of the substance from the electronic devices than they do from a conventional cigarette. Researchers found that individual puffs from an e-cigarette contained 0 to 35 µg nicotine per puff.1,18 Assuming an amount at the high end of the spectrum (30 µg nicotine), it would take about 30 puffs of an e-cigarette to derive the same amount of nicotine (1 mg) typically delivered by a conventional cigarette.

The chemical make-up of the vapor and the biologic effects on animal models have been investigated using 42 different liquid refills.19,20 All contained potentially harmful compounds, but the levels were within exposure limits authorized by the FDA. These potentially dangerous chemicals include the known toxins formaldehyde, acrolein, and hydrocarbons.20

An inflammatory response to the inhalation of the vapors was demonstrated in mouse lungs; exposure to e-cigarette aerosols reduced lung glutathione—an important enzyme in maintaining oxidation-reduction balance—to a degree similar to that of cigarette smoke exposure.20 Less of the enzyme facilitates increased pulmonary inflammation.

In addition, human lung cells release pro-inflammatory cytokines when exposed to e-cigarette aerosols.20 Other health risks include:

Harm to indoor air quality/secondhand exposure. Even though e-cigarettes do not emit smoke, bystanders are exposed to the aerosol or vapor exhaled by the user, and researchers have found varying levels of such substances as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, isoprene, acetic acid, acetone, propanol, propylene glycol, and nicotine in the air. However, it is unclear at this time whether the ultra-fine particles in the e-cigarette vapor have health effects commensurate with the emissions of conventional cigarettes.1,21,22

Cartridge refill ingestion by children. Accidental nicotine poisonings, particularly among children drawn to the colors, flavors, and scents of the e-liquids, have been problematic. In 2014, for example, over 3500 exposures occurred and more than half of those were in children younger than 6 years of age. (Exposure is defined as contact with the substance in some way including ingestion, inhalation, absorption by the skin/eyes, etc; not all exposures are poisonings or overdoses).23 Although incidence has tapered off somewhat, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that there were 623 exposures across all age groups between January 1, 2016 and April 30, 2016.23

Many people use e-cigarettes as a means to stop smoking, but few who do so achieve abstinence.

Environmental impact of discarded e-cigarettes. Discarded e-cigarettes filling our landfills is a new and emerging public health concern. Their batteries, as do all batteries, pollute the land and water and have the potential to leach lead into the environment.24 Similarly, incompletely used liquid cartridges and refills may contain nicotine and heavy metals, which add to these risks.24

Explosions. Fires and explosions have been documented with e-cigarette use, mostly due to malfunctioning lithium-ion batteries.25 Thermal injuries to the face and hands can be significant.

Heavy metals. The presence of lead, cadmium, and nickel in inhaled e-cigarette vapor is another area of significant concern, particularly for younger people who might have long-term exposure.1 All 3 heavy metals are known to be toxic to humans, and safe levels of inhalation have not been established.

Inhalation and/or ingestion of lead, in particular, can cause severe neurologic damage, especially to the developing brains of children.26 Lead also results in hematologic dysfunction. Because of the risks associated with inhalation of this heavy metal, the substance was removed from gasoline years ago.

Inhaled cadmium induces kidney, liver, bone, and respiratory tract pathology27 and can cause organ failure, hypertension, anemias, fractures, osteoporosis, and/or osteomalacia.28 And inhaling nickel produces an inflammatory pulmonary reaction.29

Pregnancy/lactation. Since no clear evidence exists on the safety of e-cigarette use during pregnancy, women should avoid exposure to these vapors during the entire perinatal period. Similarly, the effects of e-cigarettes on infants who are breastfeeding are not established. Pregnant and breastfeeding women should not replace cigarettes with e-cigarettes.30,31 For pregnant women who smoke, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) advises using only behavioral methods to stop cigarette use.32 And until more information becomes available, exposing infants and young children to e-cigarette vapor during breastfeeding is not recommended.

On the flip side, without tobacco, tar, ash, or carbon monoxide, e-cigarettes may have some advantages when compared with the use of traditional cigarettes, but that has not been substantiated.

 

 

SIDEBAR
Cigarettes vs e-cigarettes: How does the experience (and cost) compare?

If you were to ask a smoker to describe how cigarette smoking compares to using e-cigarettes, he or she would probably tell you that while the process of drawing on an e-cigarette is similar to that of a conventional cigarette, the experience in terms of reaching that state of relaxation or getting that “smoker’s high” is not.

In fact, a recent national survey of current and former smokers found that more than three-quarters of current smokers (77%) rated e-cigarettes less satisfying than conventional cigarettes and stopped using them.1 “Being less harmful” was the most highly rated reason for continuing to use the devices among people who switched from conventional to e-cigarettes.

How do they work? E-cigarettes do not burn anything and users do not light them. E-cigarettes work in much the same way as a smoke or fog machine. They use battery power (usually a rechargeable lithium battery) to heat a solution—usually containing nicotine, flavorings, and other chemicals—to the point that it turns into vapor. Much of whatever substances are in the vapor enter the bloodstream through the buccal mucosa, rather than the lungs.

Devices typically have an on/off button or switch, an atomizer containing a heating coil, a battery, and an LED light, which is designed to simulate a burning cigarette. A sensor detects when a user takes a drag and activates the atomizer and light. Some of the devices can be charged with a USB cord.

Because e-cigarettes don’t burn anything, they don’t have any smoke. They also don’t have any tar, ash, carbon monoxide, or odor (except perhaps a faint, short-lived scent matching the flavor liquid chosen). But the issues of second-hand exposure and effects on air quality are still being investigated.

With over 500 brands available, devices generally fall into one of 3 categories:2

  • Cigalikes: About the same size and shape of a conventional cigarette, these cigarette look-alikes may come pre-filled with about a day’s worth of liquid and then may be discarded, or they may be non-disposable and have a replaceable cartridge.

     

 

  • eGo’s: Also known as "vape pens," these devices tend to be longer and wider than cigalikes, have a more powerful battery, and usually are refillable or have a replaceable cartridge.

  • Mods: Short for “modules,” these “vaporizers” tend to be the largest and most expensive type of e-cigarette. They may be refilled with e-liquid or accept replaceable cartridges and have even more powerful batteries.

What do they cost? A pack of cigarettes (containing 20 cigarettes) costs anywhere from $5 to $14, depending on where one lives.3 The price of e-cigarette devices starts at about $8 and can climb higher than $100. A 5-pack of flavor cartridges or a refill tank of e-liquid (which may last as long as about 150 cigarettes) costs about $10 to $15.4

To put this in perspective, a pack-a-day smoker in New York might spend about $5000 a year on cigarettes ($14 per pack x 365 days in a year), whereas someone who uses an e-cigarette device ($10) plus a refill tank per week ($14 x 52 weeks per year) will spend about $740 a year. (The actual cost will be higher because atomizers or devices as a whole must be replaced periodically, with some lasting only days and others lasting weeks or months, depending largely on how often one uses them. Although the cost of atomizers ranges widely, many can be found for $3-$5.)

Of course, the difference between cigarettes and e-cigarettes will be less dramatic in states where cigarettes are cheaper.

References

1.  Pechacek TF, Nayak P, Gregory KR, et al. The potential that electronic delivery systems can be a disruptive technology: results from a national survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016. Available at: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/05/03/ntr.ntw102.abstract. Accessed May 13, 2016.

2.  Center for Environmental Health. A smoking gun: cancer-causing chemicals in e-cigarettes. Available at: http://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/CEH-2015-report_A-Smoking-Gun_-Cancer-Causing-Chemicals-in-E-Cigarettes_alt.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2016.

3.  Holmes H. The price of being an American. What a pack of cigarettes costs, in every state. August 28, 2015. Available at: http://www.theawl.com/2015/08/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-in-every-state. Accessed May 11, 2016.

4.  Blu. How much do e-cigs cost? E-cig & vapor cigarette prices. Available at: http://www.blucigs.com/much-e-cigs-cost/. Accessed May 13, 2016.

 

 

Don’t substitute one form of nicotine for another

The presence of lead, cadmium, and nickel in inhaled e-cigarette vapor is an area of significant concern.

The USPSTF has not determined the benefit-to-harm ratio of using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid, but recommends prescribing behavioral techniques and/or pharmacologic alternatives instead.32 Because the devices have been promoted as an aid to smoking cessation, intention to quit using tobacco products is a reason often stated for utilizing e-cigarettes.2,33,34 Indeed, use of e-cigarettes is much more likely among those who already utilize tobacco products.35-37

At least one study reports that e-cigarettes have efficacy similar to nicotine patches in achieving smoking abstinence among smokers who want to quit.38 Former smokers who used e-cigarettes to quit smoking reported fewer withdrawal symptoms than those who used nicotine skin patches.39 In addition, former smokers were more likely to endorse e-cigarettes than nicotine patches as a tobacco cigarette cessation aid. Significant reduction in tobacco smoke exposure has been demonstrated in dual users of tobacco and electronic cigarettes;40,41 however, both of these nicotine delivery systems sustain nicotine addiction.

Despite many ongoing studies to determine if e-cigarettes are useful as a smoking cessation aid, the results vary widely and are inconclusive at this time.42

E-cigarettes do not increase long-term tobacco abstinence

Contrary to popular belief, research shows that e-cigarette use among smokers is not associated with long-term tobacco abstinence.1 E-cigarette users, however, may make more attempts to quit smoking compared with smokers not using them.43 In addition, even though there is some evidence that e-cigarettes help smokers reduce the number of cigarettes smoked per day, simply reducing the daily number of cigarettes does not equate with safety.44 Smoking just one to 4 cigarettes per day poses 3 times the risk of myocardial infarction and lung cancer compared with not smoking.44 And since many individuals continue to use traditional and electronic cigarettes, they end up in double jeopardy of toxicity through exposure to the dangers of both.

A gateway to other substances of abuse?

Pregnant and breastfeeding women should not replace tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes.

There is also fear that nicotine exposure via e-cigarettes, especially in young people, serves as a “gateway” to tobacco consumption and other substance abuses, and increases the risk for nicotine addiction.34 Such nicotine-induced effects are a result of changes in brain chemistry, and have been documented in humans and animals.34

These concerns about negative health consequences, combined with the fact that e-cigarettes are undocumented as a smoking cessation aid, add urgency to the need for legislative and regulatory actions that hopefully can curb all nicotine exposures, particularly for our nation’s youth. In the meantime, it is important for physicians to advise patients—and the public—about the risks of e-cigarettes and the importance of quitting all forms of nicotine inhalation because nicotine—regardless of how it is delivered—is still an addictive drug.

CORRESPONDENCE
Steven Lippmann, MD, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 401 E. Chestnut Street, Suite 610, Louisville, KY 40202; [email protected].

PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS

› Inform patients that e-cigarette vapors contain toxic substances, including the heavy metals lead, cadmium, and nickel. A
› Educate all patients—particularly young people and those who are pregnant or lactating—about the potential health risks of e-cigarettes. B

Strength of recommendation (SOR)

A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become increasingly popular over the last decade. Although they are perceived by many to be safer than traditional cigarettes, many of the devices still contain nicotine, and inhaling their vapors exposes users to toxic substances, including lead, cadmium, and nickel—heavy metals that are associated with significant health problems.1 (For more on how e-cigarettes work, see “Cigarettes vs e-cigarettes: How does the experience (and cost) compare?”)

In addition, many people use e-cigarettes as a means to stop smoking, but few who do so achieve abstinence.2,3 They frequently end up utilizing both, increasing their health risks by exposing themselves to the dangers of 2 products instead of one.1

Further complicating the issue is that the manufacture and distribution of e-cigarettes has not been well regulated. Without regulation, there is no way to know with certainty how much nicotine the devices contain and what else is in them.

Things, however, are changing. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that e-cigarettes and other tobacco products like cigars and hookahs will now be regulated in the same way the government regulates tobacco cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.4 The rule will not take effect immediately because companies requested time to comply, but once it is enacted, packaging will be required to list what the products contain, among other changes.

Keeping up on the latest information on e-cigarettes is now—and will continue to be—important as family physicians are increasingly asked about them. What follows is a review of what we know about their potential risks.

 

© 2016 iStock

A nicotine system developed by a pharmacist

E-cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems, were patented in 2003 by a Chinese pharmacist.5 Since their introduction to North America and Europe in 2007, the devices have become known by over 400 different brand names.6 Consumption among adults doubled by 2012, and by 2014, about 4% of US adults used e-cigarettes every day or some days.7 Many of them are dual users of tobacco and electronic cigarettes. In fact, Jenkins and colleagues reports in this issue of JFP (see "E-cigarettes: Who's using them and why?") that over half of cigarette smokers (52%) in their study use e-cigarettes, usually to either lower their cigarette consumption or aid in smoking cessation. (Throughout this article, we will use “cigarettes” and “smoking” to refer to the use of traditional tobacco cigarettes.)

In addition to concern over an increase in use among the general population, there is significant concern about the increase in e-cigarette use among US middle and high school students.1,8,9 In 2015, e-cigarettes were the most commonly used smoking product among middle and high school students, with 620,000 middle school students and nearly 2.4 million high school students using the battery-powered devices in the past 30 days.10

Many factors have contributed to the growing popularity of e-cigarettes.

  • Perceived safety. With tobacco’s dangers so thoroughly documented, many advertising campaigns tout e-cigarettes as less dangerous than conventional cigarettes in terms of their ability to cause cardiac and lung diseases and low birth weights. This is largely because e-cigarettes do not produce the combustion products of tar, ash, or carbon monoxide. In addition, many consumers are mistakenly less fearful about the nicotine added to many e-cigarettes.
  • Expectation that it helps smokers quit. Many smokers view e-cigarettes as an aid to smoking cessation.6 In fact, testimonials of efficacy in tobacco cessation abound in promotional materials and on the Web, and e-cigarettes are recommended by some physicians as a means to quit or lessen smoking of tobacco cigarettes.11
  • Wide availability and opportunities for use. The use of electronic nicotine delivery devices is sometimes permitted in places where smoking of conventional cigarettes is banned, although rules vary widely in different parts of the country. In addition, e-cigarettes are readily available for purchase on the Internet without age verification.
  • Extensive advertising. There are increasing concerns that advertising campaigns unduly target adolescents, young adults, and women.12-155 In addition to advertising, the media and social influences play significant roles in young people’s experimentation with “vaping,” the term for inhaling electronic cigarette aerosols.14,15
  • Regulation, legislation remain controversial. Currently, e-cigarettes are not required to be tested before marketing,16 but that may change with the FDA’s new regulations. The British National Public Health body, Public Health England, has documented public health benefits of e-cigarettes when used as a way to quit smoking, and provides evidence that the devices are less dangerous than traditional cigarettes.17 But this issue and public policy are the subject of ongoing debate. In 2015, the United Kingdom made it illegal to sell e-cigarettes or e-liquids to people younger than 18 years of age and urged child-proof packaging.

What’s “in” an e-cigarette—and are the ingredients toxic?

Because e-cigarettes are relatively new to the global marketplace, little research exists regarding the long-term effects and safety of their use, especially among habitual users.

Vapor/refills. E-liquids may contain a variety of substances because they have been largely unregulated, but they generally include some combination of nicotine, propylene glycol, glycerin, and flavorings. In fact, up to 7000 flavors are available,6 including such kid-friendly flavors as chocolate, cherry crush, and bubble gum.

Since many individuals continue to use traditional and electronic cigarettes, they end up in double jeopardy of toxicity through exposure to the dangers of both.

When the refills do contain nicotine, users generally derive less of the substance from the electronic devices than they do from a conventional cigarette. Researchers found that individual puffs from an e-cigarette contained 0 to 35 µg nicotine per puff.1,18 Assuming an amount at the high end of the spectrum (30 µg nicotine), it would take about 30 puffs of an e-cigarette to derive the same amount of nicotine (1 mg) typically delivered by a conventional cigarette.

The chemical make-up of the vapor and the biologic effects on animal models have been investigated using 42 different liquid refills.19,20 All contained potentially harmful compounds, but the levels were within exposure limits authorized by the FDA. These potentially dangerous chemicals include the known toxins formaldehyde, acrolein, and hydrocarbons.20

An inflammatory response to the inhalation of the vapors was demonstrated in mouse lungs; exposure to e-cigarette aerosols reduced lung glutathione—an important enzyme in maintaining oxidation-reduction balance—to a degree similar to that of cigarette smoke exposure.20 Less of the enzyme facilitates increased pulmonary inflammation.

In addition, human lung cells release pro-inflammatory cytokines when exposed to e-cigarette aerosols.20 Other health risks include:

Harm to indoor air quality/secondhand exposure. Even though e-cigarettes do not emit smoke, bystanders are exposed to the aerosol or vapor exhaled by the user, and researchers have found varying levels of such substances as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, isoprene, acetic acid, acetone, propanol, propylene glycol, and nicotine in the air. However, it is unclear at this time whether the ultra-fine particles in the e-cigarette vapor have health effects commensurate with the emissions of conventional cigarettes.1,21,22

Cartridge refill ingestion by children. Accidental nicotine poisonings, particularly among children drawn to the colors, flavors, and scents of the e-liquids, have been problematic. In 2014, for example, over 3500 exposures occurred and more than half of those were in children younger than 6 years of age. (Exposure is defined as contact with the substance in some way including ingestion, inhalation, absorption by the skin/eyes, etc; not all exposures are poisonings or overdoses).23 Although incidence has tapered off somewhat, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that there were 623 exposures across all age groups between January 1, 2016 and April 30, 2016.23

Many people use e-cigarettes as a means to stop smoking, but few who do so achieve abstinence.

Environmental impact of discarded e-cigarettes. Discarded e-cigarettes filling our landfills is a new and emerging public health concern. Their batteries, as do all batteries, pollute the land and water and have the potential to leach lead into the environment.24 Similarly, incompletely used liquid cartridges and refills may contain nicotine and heavy metals, which add to these risks.24

Explosions. Fires and explosions have been documented with e-cigarette use, mostly due to malfunctioning lithium-ion batteries.25 Thermal injuries to the face and hands can be significant.

Heavy metals. The presence of lead, cadmium, and nickel in inhaled e-cigarette vapor is another area of significant concern, particularly for younger people who might have long-term exposure.1 All 3 heavy metals are known to be toxic to humans, and safe levels of inhalation have not been established.

Inhalation and/or ingestion of lead, in particular, can cause severe neurologic damage, especially to the developing brains of children.26 Lead also results in hematologic dysfunction. Because of the risks associated with inhalation of this heavy metal, the substance was removed from gasoline years ago.

Inhaled cadmium induces kidney, liver, bone, and respiratory tract pathology27 and can cause organ failure, hypertension, anemias, fractures, osteoporosis, and/or osteomalacia.28 And inhaling nickel produces an inflammatory pulmonary reaction.29

Pregnancy/lactation. Since no clear evidence exists on the safety of e-cigarette use during pregnancy, women should avoid exposure to these vapors during the entire perinatal period. Similarly, the effects of e-cigarettes on infants who are breastfeeding are not established. Pregnant and breastfeeding women should not replace cigarettes with e-cigarettes.30,31 For pregnant women who smoke, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) advises using only behavioral methods to stop cigarette use.32 And until more information becomes available, exposing infants and young children to e-cigarette vapor during breastfeeding is not recommended.

On the flip side, without tobacco, tar, ash, or carbon monoxide, e-cigarettes may have some advantages when compared with the use of traditional cigarettes, but that has not been substantiated.

 

 

SIDEBAR
Cigarettes vs e-cigarettes: How does the experience (and cost) compare?

If you were to ask a smoker to describe how cigarette smoking compares to using e-cigarettes, he or she would probably tell you that while the process of drawing on an e-cigarette is similar to that of a conventional cigarette, the experience in terms of reaching that state of relaxation or getting that “smoker’s high” is not.

In fact, a recent national survey of current and former smokers found that more than three-quarters of current smokers (77%) rated e-cigarettes less satisfying than conventional cigarettes and stopped using them.1 “Being less harmful” was the most highly rated reason for continuing to use the devices among people who switched from conventional to e-cigarettes.

How do they work? E-cigarettes do not burn anything and users do not light them. E-cigarettes work in much the same way as a smoke or fog machine. They use battery power (usually a rechargeable lithium battery) to heat a solution—usually containing nicotine, flavorings, and other chemicals—to the point that it turns into vapor. Much of whatever substances are in the vapor enter the bloodstream through the buccal mucosa, rather than the lungs.

Devices typically have an on/off button or switch, an atomizer containing a heating coil, a battery, and an LED light, which is designed to simulate a burning cigarette. A sensor detects when a user takes a drag and activates the atomizer and light. Some of the devices can be charged with a USB cord.

Because e-cigarettes don’t burn anything, they don’t have any smoke. They also don’t have any tar, ash, carbon monoxide, or odor (except perhaps a faint, short-lived scent matching the flavor liquid chosen). But the issues of second-hand exposure and effects on air quality are still being investigated.

With over 500 brands available, devices generally fall into one of 3 categories:2

  • Cigalikes: About the same size and shape of a conventional cigarette, these cigarette look-alikes may come pre-filled with about a day’s worth of liquid and then may be discarded, or they may be non-disposable and have a replaceable cartridge.

     

 

  • eGo’s: Also known as "vape pens," these devices tend to be longer and wider than cigalikes, have a more powerful battery, and usually are refillable or have a replaceable cartridge.

  • Mods: Short for “modules,” these “vaporizers” tend to be the largest and most expensive type of e-cigarette. They may be refilled with e-liquid or accept replaceable cartridges and have even more powerful batteries.

What do they cost? A pack of cigarettes (containing 20 cigarettes) costs anywhere from $5 to $14, depending on where one lives.3 The price of e-cigarette devices starts at about $8 and can climb higher than $100. A 5-pack of flavor cartridges or a refill tank of e-liquid (which may last as long as about 150 cigarettes) costs about $10 to $15.4

To put this in perspective, a pack-a-day smoker in New York might spend about $5000 a year on cigarettes ($14 per pack x 365 days in a year), whereas someone who uses an e-cigarette device ($10) plus a refill tank per week ($14 x 52 weeks per year) will spend about $740 a year. (The actual cost will be higher because atomizers or devices as a whole must be replaced periodically, with some lasting only days and others lasting weeks or months, depending largely on how often one uses them. Although the cost of atomizers ranges widely, many can be found for $3-$5.)

Of course, the difference between cigarettes and e-cigarettes will be less dramatic in states where cigarettes are cheaper.

References

1.  Pechacek TF, Nayak P, Gregory KR, et al. The potential that electronic delivery systems can be a disruptive technology: results from a national survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016. Available at: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/05/03/ntr.ntw102.abstract. Accessed May 13, 2016.

2.  Center for Environmental Health. A smoking gun: cancer-causing chemicals in e-cigarettes. Available at: http://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/CEH-2015-report_A-Smoking-Gun_-Cancer-Causing-Chemicals-in-E-Cigarettes_alt.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2016.

3.  Holmes H. The price of being an American. What a pack of cigarettes costs, in every state. August 28, 2015. Available at: http://www.theawl.com/2015/08/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-in-every-state. Accessed May 11, 2016.

4.  Blu. How much do e-cigs cost? E-cig & vapor cigarette prices. Available at: http://www.blucigs.com/much-e-cigs-cost/. Accessed May 13, 2016.

 

 

Don’t substitute one form of nicotine for another

The presence of lead, cadmium, and nickel in inhaled e-cigarette vapor is an area of significant concern.

The USPSTF has not determined the benefit-to-harm ratio of using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid, but recommends prescribing behavioral techniques and/or pharmacologic alternatives instead.32 Because the devices have been promoted as an aid to smoking cessation, intention to quit using tobacco products is a reason often stated for utilizing e-cigarettes.2,33,34 Indeed, use of e-cigarettes is much more likely among those who already utilize tobacco products.35-37

At least one study reports that e-cigarettes have efficacy similar to nicotine patches in achieving smoking abstinence among smokers who want to quit.38 Former smokers who used e-cigarettes to quit smoking reported fewer withdrawal symptoms than those who used nicotine skin patches.39 In addition, former smokers were more likely to endorse e-cigarettes than nicotine patches as a tobacco cigarette cessation aid. Significant reduction in tobacco smoke exposure has been demonstrated in dual users of tobacco and electronic cigarettes;40,41 however, both of these nicotine delivery systems sustain nicotine addiction.

Despite many ongoing studies to determine if e-cigarettes are useful as a smoking cessation aid, the results vary widely and are inconclusive at this time.42

E-cigarettes do not increase long-term tobacco abstinence

Contrary to popular belief, research shows that e-cigarette use among smokers is not associated with long-term tobacco abstinence.1 E-cigarette users, however, may make more attempts to quit smoking compared with smokers not using them.43 In addition, even though there is some evidence that e-cigarettes help smokers reduce the number of cigarettes smoked per day, simply reducing the daily number of cigarettes does not equate with safety.44 Smoking just one to 4 cigarettes per day poses 3 times the risk of myocardial infarction and lung cancer compared with not smoking.44 And since many individuals continue to use traditional and electronic cigarettes, they end up in double jeopardy of toxicity through exposure to the dangers of both.

A gateway to other substances of abuse?

Pregnant and breastfeeding women should not replace tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes.

There is also fear that nicotine exposure via e-cigarettes, especially in young people, serves as a “gateway” to tobacco consumption and other substance abuses, and increases the risk for nicotine addiction.34 Such nicotine-induced effects are a result of changes in brain chemistry, and have been documented in humans and animals.34

These concerns about negative health consequences, combined with the fact that e-cigarettes are undocumented as a smoking cessation aid, add urgency to the need for legislative and regulatory actions that hopefully can curb all nicotine exposures, particularly for our nation’s youth. In the meantime, it is important for physicians to advise patients—and the public—about the risks of e-cigarettes and the importance of quitting all forms of nicotine inhalation because nicotine—regardless of how it is delivered—is still an addictive drug.

CORRESPONDENCE
Steven Lippmann, MD, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 401 E. Chestnut Street, Suite 610, Louisville, KY 40202; [email protected].

References

1. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation. 2014;129:1972-1986.

2. Vickerman KA, Carpenter KM, Altman T, et al. Use of electronic cigarettes among state tobacco cessation quitline callers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:1787-1791.

3. Grana R, Popova L, Ling P. A longitudinal analysis of electronic cigarette use and smoking cessation. JAMA Int Med. 2014;174:812-813.

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vaporizers, e-cigarettes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredientsComponents/ucm456610.htm. Accessed May 12, 2016.

5. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. Background paper on E-cigarettes (electronic nicotine delivery systems). Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, a WHO Collaborating Center on Tobacco Control. Prepared for World Health Organization Tobacco Free Initiative. December 2013. Available at: http://pvw.escholarship.org/uc/item/13p2b72n. Accessed March 31, 2014.

6. Zhu SH, Sun JY, Bonnevie E, et al. Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tob Control. 2014;23:iii3-iii9.

7. Electronic Cigarette Use Among Adults: United States, 2014. NCHStats: A blog of the National Center for Health Statistics. Available at: http://nchstats.com/2015/10/28/electronic-cigarette-use-among-adults-united-states-2014/. Accessed April 22, 2016.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E-cigarette use more than doubles among U.S. middle and high school students from 2011-2012. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0905-ecigarette-use.html. Accessed April 22, 2016.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notes from the field: electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students — United States, 2011-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62:729-730.

10. Singh T, Arrazola RA, Corey CG, et al. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rpt. 2016;65:361-367.

11. Kandra KL, Ranney LM, Lee JG, et al. Physicians’ attitudes and use of e-cigarettes as cessation devices, North Carolina, 2013. PloS One. 2014;9:e103462.

12. Schraufnagel DE. Electronic cigarettes: vulnerability of youth. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2015;28:2-6.

13. White J, Li J, Newcombe R, et al. Tripling use of electronic cigarettes among New Zealand adolescents between 2012 and 2014. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56:522-528.

14. Duke JC, Lee YO, Kim AE, et al. Exposure to electronic cigarette television advertisements among youth and young adults. Pediatrics. 2014;134:29-36.

15. Huang J, Kornfield R, Szczypka G, et al. A cross-sectional examination of marketing of electronic cigarettes on Twitter. Tob Control. 2014;23:iii26-iii30.

16. Rojewski AM, Coleman N, Toll BA. Position Statement: Emerging policy issues regarding electronic nicotine delivery systems: a need for regulation. Society of Behavioral Medicine. 2016. Available at: http://www.sbm.org/UserFiles/file/e-cig-statement_v2_lores.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2016.

17. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, et al. E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update. Accessed April 22, 2016.

18. Goniewicz ML, Kuma T, Gawron M, et al. Nicotine levels in electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:158-166.

19. Varlet V, Farsalinos K, Augsburger M, et al. Toxicity assessment of refill liquids for electronic cigarettes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:4796-4815.

20. Lerner CA, Sundar IK, Yao H, et al. Vapors produced by electronic cigarettes and e-juices with flavorings induce toxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory response in lung epithelial cells and in mouse lung. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0116732.

21. Schober W, Szendrei K, Matzen W, et al. Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014;217:628-637.

22. Schripp T, Markewitz D, Uhde E, et al. Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping? Indoor Air. 2013;23:25-31.

23. The American Association of Poison Control Centers. E-cigarettes and liquid nicotine. Available at: http://www.aapcc.org/alerts/e-cigarettes/. Accessed May 12, 2016.

24. Krause MJ, Townsend TG. Hazardous waste status of discarded electronic cigarettes. Waste Manag. 2015;39:57-62.

25. U.S. Fire Administration. Electronic cigarette fires and explosions. October 2014. Available at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/electronic_cigarettes.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2016.

26. Skerfving S, Löfmark L, Lundh T, et al. Late effects of low blood lead concentrations in children on school performance and cognitive functions. Neurotoxicology. 2015;49:114-120.

27. Bernhoft RA. Cadmium toxicity and treatment. Scientific World Journal. 2013;394652.

28. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Case studies in environmental medicine (CSEM) Cadmium Toxicity. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/cadmium/docs/cadmium.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2016.

29. Das KK, Buchner V. Effect of nickel exposure on peripheral tissues: role of oxidative stress in toxicity and possible protection by ascorbic acid. Rev Environ Health. 2007;22:157-173.

30. England LJ, Bunnell RE, Pechacek TF, et al. Nicotine and the developing human: a neglected element in the electronic cigarette debate. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49:286-293.

31. Suter MA, Mastrobattista J, Sachs M, et al. Is there evidence for potential harm of electronic cigarette use in pregnancy? Birth defects research. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015;103:186-195.

32. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Recommendation Statement. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults and pregnant women: behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-recommendation-statement147/tobacco-use-in-adults-and-pregnant-women-counseling-and-interventions1. Accessed March 22, 2016.

33. Peters EN, Harrell PT, Hendricks PS, et al. Electronic cigarettes in adults in outpatient substance use treatment: awareness, perceptions, use, and reasons for use. Am J Addict. 2015;24:233-239.

34. Kandel ER, Kandel DB. A molecular basis for nicotine as a gateway drug. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:932-943.

35. King BA, Patel R, Nguyen KH, et al. Trends in awareness and use of electronic cigarettes among US Adults, 2010-2013. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17:219-227.

36. McMillen RC, Gottlieb MA, Shaefer RM, et al. Trends in electronic cigarette use among U.S. adults: use is increasing in both smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;1195-1202.

37. Lee S, Grana RA, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarette use among Korean adolescents: a cross-sectional study of market penetration, dual use, and relationship to quit attempts and former smoking. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54:684-690.

38. Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382:1629-1637.

39. Nelson VA, Goniewicz ML, Beard E, et al. Comparison of the characteristics of long-term users of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy: a cross-sectional survey of English ex-smokers and current smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;153:300-305.

40. Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, et al. Efficiency and safety of an electronic cigarette (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e66317.

41. Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Morjaria JB, et al. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:786.

42. Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016. [Epub ahead of print].

43. Brose LS, Hitchman SC, Brown J, et al. Is the use of electronic cigarettes while smoking associated with smoking cessation attempts, cessation and reduced cigarette consumption? A survey with a 1-year follow-up. Addiction. 2015;110:1160-1168.

44. Bjartveit K, Tverdal A. Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day. Tob Control. 2005;14:315-320.

References

1. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation. 2014;129:1972-1986.

2. Vickerman KA, Carpenter KM, Altman T, et al. Use of electronic cigarettes among state tobacco cessation quitline callers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:1787-1791.

3. Grana R, Popova L, Ling P. A longitudinal analysis of electronic cigarette use and smoking cessation. JAMA Int Med. 2014;174:812-813.

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Vaporizers, e-cigarettes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredientsComponents/ucm456610.htm. Accessed May 12, 2016.

5. Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. Background paper on E-cigarettes (electronic nicotine delivery systems). Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, a WHO Collaborating Center on Tobacco Control. Prepared for World Health Organization Tobacco Free Initiative. December 2013. Available at: http://pvw.escholarship.org/uc/item/13p2b72n. Accessed March 31, 2014.

6. Zhu SH, Sun JY, Bonnevie E, et al. Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tob Control. 2014;23:iii3-iii9.

7. Electronic Cigarette Use Among Adults: United States, 2014. NCHStats: A blog of the National Center for Health Statistics. Available at: http://nchstats.com/2015/10/28/electronic-cigarette-use-among-adults-united-states-2014/. Accessed April 22, 2016.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E-cigarette use more than doubles among U.S. middle and high school students from 2011-2012. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0905-ecigarette-use.html. Accessed April 22, 2016.

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notes from the field: electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students — United States, 2011-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62:729-730.

10. Singh T, Arrazola RA, Corey CG, et al. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011-2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rpt. 2016;65:361-367.

11. Kandra KL, Ranney LM, Lee JG, et al. Physicians’ attitudes and use of e-cigarettes as cessation devices, North Carolina, 2013. PloS One. 2014;9:e103462.

12. Schraufnagel DE. Electronic cigarettes: vulnerability of youth. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2015;28:2-6.

13. White J, Li J, Newcombe R, et al. Tripling use of electronic cigarettes among New Zealand adolescents between 2012 and 2014. J Adolesc Health. 2015;56:522-528.

14. Duke JC, Lee YO, Kim AE, et al. Exposure to electronic cigarette television advertisements among youth and young adults. Pediatrics. 2014;134:29-36.

15. Huang J, Kornfield R, Szczypka G, et al. A cross-sectional examination of marketing of electronic cigarettes on Twitter. Tob Control. 2014;23:iii26-iii30.

16. Rojewski AM, Coleman N, Toll BA. Position Statement: Emerging policy issues regarding electronic nicotine delivery systems: a need for regulation. Society of Behavioral Medicine. 2016. Available at: http://www.sbm.org/UserFiles/file/e-cig-statement_v2_lores.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2016.

17. McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, et al. E-cigarettes: an evidence update. A report commissioned by Public Health England. 2015. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update. Accessed April 22, 2016.

18. Goniewicz ML, Kuma T, Gawron M, et al. Nicotine levels in electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:158-166.

19. Varlet V, Farsalinos K, Augsburger M, et al. Toxicity assessment of refill liquids for electronic cigarettes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:4796-4815.

20. Lerner CA, Sundar IK, Yao H, et al. Vapors produced by electronic cigarettes and e-juices with flavorings induce toxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory response in lung epithelial cells and in mouse lung. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0116732.

21. Schober W, Szendrei K, Matzen W, et al. Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2014;217:628-637.

22. Schripp T, Markewitz D, Uhde E, et al. Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping? Indoor Air. 2013;23:25-31.

23. The American Association of Poison Control Centers. E-cigarettes and liquid nicotine. Available at: http://www.aapcc.org/alerts/e-cigarettes/. Accessed May 12, 2016.

24. Krause MJ, Townsend TG. Hazardous waste status of discarded electronic cigarettes. Waste Manag. 2015;39:57-62.

25. U.S. Fire Administration. Electronic cigarette fires and explosions. October 2014. Available at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/electronic_cigarettes.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2016.

26. Skerfving S, Löfmark L, Lundh T, et al. Late effects of low blood lead concentrations in children on school performance and cognitive functions. Neurotoxicology. 2015;49:114-120.

27. Bernhoft RA. Cadmium toxicity and treatment. Scientific World Journal. 2013;394652.

28. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Case studies in environmental medicine (CSEM) Cadmium Toxicity. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/cadmium/docs/cadmium.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2016.

29. Das KK, Buchner V. Effect of nickel exposure on peripheral tissues: role of oxidative stress in toxicity and possible protection by ascorbic acid. Rev Environ Health. 2007;22:157-173.

30. England LJ, Bunnell RE, Pechacek TF, et al. Nicotine and the developing human: a neglected element in the electronic cigarette debate. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49:286-293.

31. Suter MA, Mastrobattista J, Sachs M, et al. Is there evidence for potential harm of electronic cigarette use in pregnancy? Birth defects research. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2015;103:186-195.

32. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Recommendation Statement. Tobacco smoking cessation in adults and pregnant women: behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-recommendation-statement147/tobacco-use-in-adults-and-pregnant-women-counseling-and-interventions1. Accessed March 22, 2016.

33. Peters EN, Harrell PT, Hendricks PS, et al. Electronic cigarettes in adults in outpatient substance use treatment: awareness, perceptions, use, and reasons for use. Am J Addict. 2015;24:233-239.

34. Kandel ER, Kandel DB. A molecular basis for nicotine as a gateway drug. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:932-943.

35. King BA, Patel R, Nguyen KH, et al. Trends in awareness and use of electronic cigarettes among US Adults, 2010-2013. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17:219-227.

36. McMillen RC, Gottlieb MA, Shaefer RM, et al. Trends in electronic cigarette use among U.S. adults: use is increasing in both smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;1195-1202.

37. Lee S, Grana RA, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarette use among Korean adolescents: a cross-sectional study of market penetration, dual use, and relationship to quit attempts and former smoking. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54:684-690.

38. Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382:1629-1637.

39. Nelson VA, Goniewicz ML, Beard E, et al. Comparison of the characteristics of long-term users of electronic cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy: a cross-sectional survey of English ex-smokers and current smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;153:300-305.

40. Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, et al. Efficiency and safety of an electronic cigarette (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e66317.

41. Polosa R, Caponnetto P, Morjaria JB, et al. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:786.

42. Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016. [Epub ahead of print].

43. Brose LS, Hitchman SC, Brown J, et al. Is the use of electronic cigarettes while smoking associated with smoking cessation attempts, cessation and reduced cigarette consumption? A survey with a 1-year follow-up. Addiction. 2015;110:1160-1168.

44. Bjartveit K, Tverdal A. Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day. Tob Control. 2005;14:315-320.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(6)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 65(6)
Page Number
380-385
Page Number
380-385
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
E-cigarettes: How “safe” are they?
Display Headline
E-cigarettes: How “safe” are they?
Legacy Keywords
e-cigarettes, nicotine, safety, cessation, toxic, respiratory, addiction/addictive substances, Lee Smith, Kanwarjeet Brar, Kavitha Srinivasan, Manasa Enja, Steven Lippmann
Legacy Keywords
e-cigarettes, nicotine, safety, cessation, toxic, respiratory, addiction/addictive substances, Lee Smith, Kanwarjeet Brar, Kavitha Srinivasan, Manasa Enja, Steven Lippmann
Sections
Article Source

From The Journal of Family Practice | 2016;65(6):380-385.

Disallow All Ads
Article PDF Media

Cognitive bias and diagnostic error

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 08/16/2017 - 13:51
Display Headline
Cognitive bias and diagnostic error

To the Editor: I appreciated the article on cognitive biases and diagnostic error by Mull et al in the November 2015 issue.1 They presented an excellent description of the pitfalls of diagnosis as reflected in a case of a patient misdiagnosed with heart failure who ultimately died of pulmonary tuberculosis complicated by pulmonary embolism (the latter possibly from using the wrong form of heparin). To the points they raised,  I would like to add a few of my own about diagnosis in general and heart failure in particular.

First, any initial diagnosis not confirmed objectively within the first 24 hours should be questioned, and other possibilities should be investigated. I have found this to be essential for every day’s stay in the hospital and for every outpatient visit. The authors mention checklists as part of the solution to the problem of misdiagnosis, and I would suggest that confirmation of initial diagnoses be built into these checklists.

In the case of a presumptive diagnosis of an acute exacerbation of heart failure treated empirically with diuretics, the diagnosis should be confirmed by the next day’s response to the diuretics, ie, increased urine output, a lower respiratory rate, and a fall in the pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level. Moreover, a change in the radiographic appearance should be seen, and respiratory and pulmonary function should improve after the first 24 hours on oxygen supplementation plus diuretics. Daily patient weights are also critical in determining response to a diuretic, and are rarely done accurately. I order weights and review them daily for patients like this.

Second, it is good to look at things yourself, including the patient, medication lists, laboratory values, and radiographic films. The attending physician should look at the radiographs together with a senior radiologist. Seeing no improvement or change on the second hospital day, or seeing signs incompatible with heart failure, one could order computed tomography of the chest and begin to entertain pulmonary diagnoses.

Even vital signs can be questionable. For example, in the case presented here, with a temperature of 99°F, a heart rate of 105, and a pulse oxygenation saturation of 89%, a respiratory rate of 24 seems unbelievably low. In my experience, the respiratory rate is recorded erroneously most of the time unless it is recorded electronically or checked at the bedside by the physician using a timepiece with a sweep second-hand.

Additionally, I have found that ordering several days’ laboratory tests (eg, complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels) in advance, in many cases, risks missing important findings and wastes time, energy, and the patient’s blood. I have learned to evaluate each patient daily and to order the most pertinent laboratory tests. With electronic medical records, I can check laboratory results as soon as they are available.  

References
  1. Mull N, Reilly JB, Myers JS. An elderly woman with ‘heart failure’: cognitive biases and diagnostic error. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:745–753.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Morton H. Field, MD
Beverly Hills, CA

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 83(6)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
407-408
Legacy Keywords
heart failure, cognitive bias, diagnostic error, Morton Field
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Morton H. Field, MD
Beverly Hills, CA

Author and Disclosure Information

Morton H. Field, MD
Beverly Hills, CA

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

To the Editor: I appreciated the article on cognitive biases and diagnostic error by Mull et al in the November 2015 issue.1 They presented an excellent description of the pitfalls of diagnosis as reflected in a case of a patient misdiagnosed with heart failure who ultimately died of pulmonary tuberculosis complicated by pulmonary embolism (the latter possibly from using the wrong form of heparin). To the points they raised,  I would like to add a few of my own about diagnosis in general and heart failure in particular.

First, any initial diagnosis not confirmed objectively within the first 24 hours should be questioned, and other possibilities should be investigated. I have found this to be essential for every day’s stay in the hospital and for every outpatient visit. The authors mention checklists as part of the solution to the problem of misdiagnosis, and I would suggest that confirmation of initial diagnoses be built into these checklists.

In the case of a presumptive diagnosis of an acute exacerbation of heart failure treated empirically with diuretics, the diagnosis should be confirmed by the next day’s response to the diuretics, ie, increased urine output, a lower respiratory rate, and a fall in the pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level. Moreover, a change in the radiographic appearance should be seen, and respiratory and pulmonary function should improve after the first 24 hours on oxygen supplementation plus diuretics. Daily patient weights are also critical in determining response to a diuretic, and are rarely done accurately. I order weights and review them daily for patients like this.

Second, it is good to look at things yourself, including the patient, medication lists, laboratory values, and radiographic films. The attending physician should look at the radiographs together with a senior radiologist. Seeing no improvement or change on the second hospital day, or seeing signs incompatible with heart failure, one could order computed tomography of the chest and begin to entertain pulmonary diagnoses.

Even vital signs can be questionable. For example, in the case presented here, with a temperature of 99°F, a heart rate of 105, and a pulse oxygenation saturation of 89%, a respiratory rate of 24 seems unbelievably low. In my experience, the respiratory rate is recorded erroneously most of the time unless it is recorded electronically or checked at the bedside by the physician using a timepiece with a sweep second-hand.

Additionally, I have found that ordering several days’ laboratory tests (eg, complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels) in advance, in many cases, risks missing important findings and wastes time, energy, and the patient’s blood. I have learned to evaluate each patient daily and to order the most pertinent laboratory tests. With electronic medical records, I can check laboratory results as soon as they are available.  

To the Editor: I appreciated the article on cognitive biases and diagnostic error by Mull et al in the November 2015 issue.1 They presented an excellent description of the pitfalls of diagnosis as reflected in a case of a patient misdiagnosed with heart failure who ultimately died of pulmonary tuberculosis complicated by pulmonary embolism (the latter possibly from using the wrong form of heparin). To the points they raised,  I would like to add a few of my own about diagnosis in general and heart failure in particular.

First, any initial diagnosis not confirmed objectively within the first 24 hours should be questioned, and other possibilities should be investigated. I have found this to be essential for every day’s stay in the hospital and for every outpatient visit. The authors mention checklists as part of the solution to the problem of misdiagnosis, and I would suggest that confirmation of initial diagnoses be built into these checklists.

In the case of a presumptive diagnosis of an acute exacerbation of heart failure treated empirically with diuretics, the diagnosis should be confirmed by the next day’s response to the diuretics, ie, increased urine output, a lower respiratory rate, and a fall in the pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level. Moreover, a change in the radiographic appearance should be seen, and respiratory and pulmonary function should improve after the first 24 hours on oxygen supplementation plus diuretics. Daily patient weights are also critical in determining response to a diuretic, and are rarely done accurately. I order weights and review them daily for patients like this.

Second, it is good to look at things yourself, including the patient, medication lists, laboratory values, and radiographic films. The attending physician should look at the radiographs together with a senior radiologist. Seeing no improvement or change on the second hospital day, or seeing signs incompatible with heart failure, one could order computed tomography of the chest and begin to entertain pulmonary diagnoses.

Even vital signs can be questionable. For example, in the case presented here, with a temperature of 99°F, a heart rate of 105, and a pulse oxygenation saturation of 89%, a respiratory rate of 24 seems unbelievably low. In my experience, the respiratory rate is recorded erroneously most of the time unless it is recorded electronically or checked at the bedside by the physician using a timepiece with a sweep second-hand.

Additionally, I have found that ordering several days’ laboratory tests (eg, complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels) in advance, in many cases, risks missing important findings and wastes time, energy, and the patient’s blood. I have learned to evaluate each patient daily and to order the most pertinent laboratory tests. With electronic medical records, I can check laboratory results as soon as they are available.  

References
  1. Mull N, Reilly JB, Myers JS. An elderly woman with ‘heart failure’: cognitive biases and diagnostic error. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:745–753.
References
  1. Mull N, Reilly JB, Myers JS. An elderly woman with ‘heart failure’: cognitive biases and diagnostic error. Cleve Clin J Med 2015; 82:745–753.
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 83(6)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 83(6)
Page Number
407-408
Page Number
407-408
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Cognitive bias and diagnostic error
Display Headline
Cognitive bias and diagnostic error
Legacy Keywords
heart failure, cognitive bias, diagnostic error, Morton Field
Legacy Keywords
heart failure, cognitive bias, diagnostic error, Morton Field
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media