User login
The 30th-birthday gift that could save a life
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.
But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.
That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that
Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.
Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.
These include mutations like BRCA1/2, associated with a high risk for breast and ovarian cancer; mutations associated with Lynch syndrome, which confer an elevated risk for colon cancer; and mutations associated with familial hypercholesterolemia, which confer elevated risk for cardiovascular events.
In each of these cases, there is clear evidence that early intervention can save lives. Individuals at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer can get prophylactic mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy. Those with Lynch syndrome can get more frequent screening for colon cancer and polypectomy, and those with familial hypercholesterolemia can get aggressive lipid-lowering therapy.
I think most of us would probably want to know if we had one of these conditions. Most of us would use that information to take concrete steps to decrease our risk. But just because a rational person would choose to do something doesn’t mean it’s feasible. After all, we’re talking about tests and treatments that have significant costs.
In a recent issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, Josh Peterson and David Veenstra present a detailed accounting of the cost and benefit of a hypothetical nationwide, universal screening program for Tier 1 conditions. And in the end, it may actually be worth it.
Cost-benefit analyses work by comparing two independent policy choices: the status quo – in this case, a world in which some people get tested for these conditions, but generally only if they are at high risk based on strong family history; and an alternative policy – in this case, universal screening for these conditions starting at some age.
After that, it’s time to play the assumption game. Using the best available data, the authors estimated the percentage of the population that will have each condition, the percentage of those individuals who will definitively act on the information, and how effective those actions would be if taken.
The authors provide an example. First, they assume that the prevalence of mutations leading to a high risk for breast and ovarian cancer is around 0.7%, and that up to 40% of people who learn that they have one of these mutations would undergo prophylactic mastectomy, which would reduce the risk for breast cancer by around 94%. (I ran these numbers past my wife, a breast surgical oncologist, who agreed that they seem reasonable.)
Assumptions in place, it’s time to consider costs. The cost of the screening test itself: The authors use $250 as their average per-person cost. But we also have the cost of treatment – around $22,000 per person for a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy; the cost of statin therapy for those with familial hypercholesterolemia; or the cost of all of those colonoscopies for those with Lynch syndrome.
Finally, we assess quality of life. Obviously, living longer is generally considered better than living shorter, but marginal increases in life expectancy at the cost of quality of life might not be a rational choice.
You then churn these assumptions through a computer and see what comes out. How many dollars does it take to save one quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)? I’ll tell you right now that $50,000 per QALY used to be the unofficial standard for a “cost-effective” intervention in the United States. Researchers have more recently used $100,000 as that threshold.
Let’s look at some hard numbers.
If you screened 100,000 people at age 30 years, 1,500 would get news that something in their genetics was, more or less, a ticking time bomb. Some would choose to get definitive treatment and the authors estimate that the strategy would prevent 85 cases of cancer. You’d prevent nine heart attacks and five strokes by lowering cholesterol levels among those with familial hypercholesterolemia. Obviously, these aren’t huge numbers, but of course most people don’t have these hereditary risk factors. For your average 30-year-old, the genetic screening test will be completely uneventful, but for those 1,500 it will be life-changing, and potentially life-saving.
But is it worth it? The authors estimate that, at the midpoint of all their assumptions, the cost of this program would be $68,000 per QALY saved.
Of course, that depends on all those assumptions we talked about. Interestingly, the single factor that changes the cost-effectiveness the most in this analysis is the cost of the genetic test itself, which I guess makes sense, considering we’d be talking about testing a huge segment of the population. If the test cost $100 instead of $250, the cost per QALY would be $39,700 – well within the range that most policymakers would support. And given the rate at which the cost of genetic testing is decreasing, and the obvious economies of scale here, I think $100 per test is totally feasible.
The future will bring other changes as well. Right now, there are only three hereditary conditions designated as Tier 1 by the CDC. If conditions are added, that might also swing the calculation more heavily toward benefit.
This will represent a stark change from how we think about genetic testing currently, focusing on those whose pretest probability of an abnormal result is high due to family history or other risk factors. But for the 20-year-olds out there, I wouldn’t be surprised if your 30th birthday is a bit more significant than you have been anticipating.
Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.
But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.
That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that
Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.
Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.
These include mutations like BRCA1/2, associated with a high risk for breast and ovarian cancer; mutations associated with Lynch syndrome, which confer an elevated risk for colon cancer; and mutations associated with familial hypercholesterolemia, which confer elevated risk for cardiovascular events.
In each of these cases, there is clear evidence that early intervention can save lives. Individuals at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer can get prophylactic mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy. Those with Lynch syndrome can get more frequent screening for colon cancer and polypectomy, and those with familial hypercholesterolemia can get aggressive lipid-lowering therapy.
I think most of us would probably want to know if we had one of these conditions. Most of us would use that information to take concrete steps to decrease our risk. But just because a rational person would choose to do something doesn’t mean it’s feasible. After all, we’re talking about tests and treatments that have significant costs.
In a recent issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, Josh Peterson and David Veenstra present a detailed accounting of the cost and benefit of a hypothetical nationwide, universal screening program for Tier 1 conditions. And in the end, it may actually be worth it.
Cost-benefit analyses work by comparing two independent policy choices: the status quo – in this case, a world in which some people get tested for these conditions, but generally only if they are at high risk based on strong family history; and an alternative policy – in this case, universal screening for these conditions starting at some age.
After that, it’s time to play the assumption game. Using the best available data, the authors estimated the percentage of the population that will have each condition, the percentage of those individuals who will definitively act on the information, and how effective those actions would be if taken.
The authors provide an example. First, they assume that the prevalence of mutations leading to a high risk for breast and ovarian cancer is around 0.7%, and that up to 40% of people who learn that they have one of these mutations would undergo prophylactic mastectomy, which would reduce the risk for breast cancer by around 94%. (I ran these numbers past my wife, a breast surgical oncologist, who agreed that they seem reasonable.)
Assumptions in place, it’s time to consider costs. The cost of the screening test itself: The authors use $250 as their average per-person cost. But we also have the cost of treatment – around $22,000 per person for a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy; the cost of statin therapy for those with familial hypercholesterolemia; or the cost of all of those colonoscopies for those with Lynch syndrome.
Finally, we assess quality of life. Obviously, living longer is generally considered better than living shorter, but marginal increases in life expectancy at the cost of quality of life might not be a rational choice.
You then churn these assumptions through a computer and see what comes out. How many dollars does it take to save one quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)? I’ll tell you right now that $50,000 per QALY used to be the unofficial standard for a “cost-effective” intervention in the United States. Researchers have more recently used $100,000 as that threshold.
Let’s look at some hard numbers.
If you screened 100,000 people at age 30 years, 1,500 would get news that something in their genetics was, more or less, a ticking time bomb. Some would choose to get definitive treatment and the authors estimate that the strategy would prevent 85 cases of cancer. You’d prevent nine heart attacks and five strokes by lowering cholesterol levels among those with familial hypercholesterolemia. Obviously, these aren’t huge numbers, but of course most people don’t have these hereditary risk factors. For your average 30-year-old, the genetic screening test will be completely uneventful, but for those 1,500 it will be life-changing, and potentially life-saving.
But is it worth it? The authors estimate that, at the midpoint of all their assumptions, the cost of this program would be $68,000 per QALY saved.
Of course, that depends on all those assumptions we talked about. Interestingly, the single factor that changes the cost-effectiveness the most in this analysis is the cost of the genetic test itself, which I guess makes sense, considering we’d be talking about testing a huge segment of the population. If the test cost $100 instead of $250, the cost per QALY would be $39,700 – well within the range that most policymakers would support. And given the rate at which the cost of genetic testing is decreasing, and the obvious economies of scale here, I think $100 per test is totally feasible.
The future will bring other changes as well. Right now, there are only three hereditary conditions designated as Tier 1 by the CDC. If conditions are added, that might also swing the calculation more heavily toward benefit.
This will represent a stark change from how we think about genetic testing currently, focusing on those whose pretest probability of an abnormal result is high due to family history or other risk factors. But for the 20-year-olds out there, I wouldn’t be surprised if your 30th birthday is a bit more significant than you have been anticipating.
Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.
But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.
That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that
Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.
Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.
These include mutations like BRCA1/2, associated with a high risk for breast and ovarian cancer; mutations associated with Lynch syndrome, which confer an elevated risk for colon cancer; and mutations associated with familial hypercholesterolemia, which confer elevated risk for cardiovascular events.
In each of these cases, there is clear evidence that early intervention can save lives. Individuals at high risk for breast and ovarian cancer can get prophylactic mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy. Those with Lynch syndrome can get more frequent screening for colon cancer and polypectomy, and those with familial hypercholesterolemia can get aggressive lipid-lowering therapy.
I think most of us would probably want to know if we had one of these conditions. Most of us would use that information to take concrete steps to decrease our risk. But just because a rational person would choose to do something doesn’t mean it’s feasible. After all, we’re talking about tests and treatments that have significant costs.
In a recent issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, Josh Peterson and David Veenstra present a detailed accounting of the cost and benefit of a hypothetical nationwide, universal screening program for Tier 1 conditions. And in the end, it may actually be worth it.
Cost-benefit analyses work by comparing two independent policy choices: the status quo – in this case, a world in which some people get tested for these conditions, but generally only if they are at high risk based on strong family history; and an alternative policy – in this case, universal screening for these conditions starting at some age.
After that, it’s time to play the assumption game. Using the best available data, the authors estimated the percentage of the population that will have each condition, the percentage of those individuals who will definitively act on the information, and how effective those actions would be if taken.
The authors provide an example. First, they assume that the prevalence of mutations leading to a high risk for breast and ovarian cancer is around 0.7%, and that up to 40% of people who learn that they have one of these mutations would undergo prophylactic mastectomy, which would reduce the risk for breast cancer by around 94%. (I ran these numbers past my wife, a breast surgical oncologist, who agreed that they seem reasonable.)
Assumptions in place, it’s time to consider costs. The cost of the screening test itself: The authors use $250 as their average per-person cost. But we also have the cost of treatment – around $22,000 per person for a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy; the cost of statin therapy for those with familial hypercholesterolemia; or the cost of all of those colonoscopies for those with Lynch syndrome.
Finally, we assess quality of life. Obviously, living longer is generally considered better than living shorter, but marginal increases in life expectancy at the cost of quality of life might not be a rational choice.
You then churn these assumptions through a computer and see what comes out. How many dollars does it take to save one quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)? I’ll tell you right now that $50,000 per QALY used to be the unofficial standard for a “cost-effective” intervention in the United States. Researchers have more recently used $100,000 as that threshold.
Let’s look at some hard numbers.
If you screened 100,000 people at age 30 years, 1,500 would get news that something in their genetics was, more or less, a ticking time bomb. Some would choose to get definitive treatment and the authors estimate that the strategy would prevent 85 cases of cancer. You’d prevent nine heart attacks and five strokes by lowering cholesterol levels among those with familial hypercholesterolemia. Obviously, these aren’t huge numbers, but of course most people don’t have these hereditary risk factors. For your average 30-year-old, the genetic screening test will be completely uneventful, but for those 1,500 it will be life-changing, and potentially life-saving.
But is it worth it? The authors estimate that, at the midpoint of all their assumptions, the cost of this program would be $68,000 per QALY saved.
Of course, that depends on all those assumptions we talked about. Interestingly, the single factor that changes the cost-effectiveness the most in this analysis is the cost of the genetic test itself, which I guess makes sense, considering we’d be talking about testing a huge segment of the population. If the test cost $100 instead of $250, the cost per QALY would be $39,700 – well within the range that most policymakers would support. And given the rate at which the cost of genetic testing is decreasing, and the obvious economies of scale here, I think $100 per test is totally feasible.
The future will bring other changes as well. Right now, there are only three hereditary conditions designated as Tier 1 by the CDC. If conditions are added, that might also swing the calculation more heavily toward benefit.
This will represent a stark change from how we think about genetic testing currently, focusing on those whose pretest probability of an abnormal result is high due to family history or other risk factors. But for the 20-year-olds out there, I wouldn’t be surprised if your 30th birthday is a bit more significant than you have been anticipating.
Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Veterans Will Benefit if the VA Includes Telehealth in its Access Standards
The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.
The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.1 Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA reportto Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.2 The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.
The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.3 To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.4 The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.4The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.4
The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.
VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.
VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.7And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.
Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.8 And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.
Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.
1 McDonough D. Statement of the honorable Denis McDonough Secretary of Veterans Affairs Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs United States Senate on veterans access to care. 117th Cong, 2nd Sess. September 21, 2022. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2022/9/ensuring-veterans-timely-access-to-care-in-va-and-the-community/63b521ff-d308-449a-b3a3-918f4badb805
2 US Department of Veterans Affairs, Congressionally mandated report: access to care standards. September 2022.
3 US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Secretary Press Conference, Thursday March 2, 2023. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnkNl2whPoQ
4 US Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Telehealth: bridging the digital divide. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://telehealth.va.gov/digital-divide
5 Rand Corporation. Improving the Quality of Mental Health Care for Veterans: Lessons from RAND Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10087.html.
6 Lemle, R. Choice program expansion jeopardizes high-quality VHA mental health services. Federal Pract. 2018:35(3):18-24. [link to: https://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/article/159219/mental-health/choice-program-expansion-jeopardizes-high-quality-vha-mental
7 Campbell TM. Overview of the state of mental health care services in the VHA health care system. Presentation to the National Academies’ improving access to high-quality mental health care for veterans: a workshop. April 20, 2023. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.nationalacademies.org/documents/embed/link/LF2255DA3DD1C41C0A42D3BEF0989ACAECE3053A6A9B/file/D2C4B73BA6FFCAA81E6C4FC7C57020A5BA54376245AD?noSaveAs=1
8 Snoswell CL, Chelberg G, De Guzman KR, et al. The clinical effectiveness of telehealth: A systematic review of meta-analyses from 2010 to 2019. J Telemed Telecare. 2021;1357633X211022907. doi:10.1177/1357633X211022907
The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.
The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.1 Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA reportto Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.2 The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.
The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.3 To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.4 The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.4The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.4
The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.
VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.
VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.7And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.
Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.8 And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.
Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.
The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.
The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.1 Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA reportto Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.2 The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.
The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.3 To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.4 The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.4The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.4
The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.
VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.
VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.7And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.
Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.8 And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.
Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.
1 McDonough D. Statement of the honorable Denis McDonough Secretary of Veterans Affairs Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs United States Senate on veterans access to care. 117th Cong, 2nd Sess. September 21, 2022. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2022/9/ensuring-veterans-timely-access-to-care-in-va-and-the-community/63b521ff-d308-449a-b3a3-918f4badb805
2 US Department of Veterans Affairs, Congressionally mandated report: access to care standards. September 2022.
3 US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Secretary Press Conference, Thursday March 2, 2023. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnkNl2whPoQ
4 US Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Telehealth: bridging the digital divide. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://telehealth.va.gov/digital-divide
5 Rand Corporation. Improving the Quality of Mental Health Care for Veterans: Lessons from RAND Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10087.html.
6 Lemle, R. Choice program expansion jeopardizes high-quality VHA mental health services. Federal Pract. 2018:35(3):18-24. [link to: https://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/article/159219/mental-health/choice-program-expansion-jeopardizes-high-quality-vha-mental
7 Campbell TM. Overview of the state of mental health care services in the VHA health care system. Presentation to the National Academies’ improving access to high-quality mental health care for veterans: a workshop. April 20, 2023. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.nationalacademies.org/documents/embed/link/LF2255DA3DD1C41C0A42D3BEF0989ACAECE3053A6A9B/file/D2C4B73BA6FFCAA81E6C4FC7C57020A5BA54376245AD?noSaveAs=1
8 Snoswell CL, Chelberg G, De Guzman KR, et al. The clinical effectiveness of telehealth: A systematic review of meta-analyses from 2010 to 2019. J Telemed Telecare. 2021;1357633X211022907. doi:10.1177/1357633X211022907
1 McDonough D. Statement of the honorable Denis McDonough Secretary of Veterans Affairs Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs United States Senate on veterans access to care. 117th Cong, 2nd Sess. September 21, 2022. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2022/9/ensuring-veterans-timely-access-to-care-in-va-and-the-community/63b521ff-d308-449a-b3a3-918f4badb805
2 US Department of Veterans Affairs, Congressionally mandated report: access to care standards. September 2022.
3 US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Secretary Press Conference, Thursday March 2, 2023. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnkNl2whPoQ
4 US Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Telehealth: bridging the digital divide. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://telehealth.va.gov/digital-divide
5 Rand Corporation. Improving the Quality of Mental Health Care for Veterans: Lessons from RAND Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10087.html.
6 Lemle, R. Choice program expansion jeopardizes high-quality VHA mental health services. Federal Pract. 2018:35(3):18-24. [link to: https://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/article/159219/mental-health/choice-program-expansion-jeopardizes-high-quality-vha-mental
7 Campbell TM. Overview of the state of mental health care services in the VHA health care system. Presentation to the National Academies’ improving access to high-quality mental health care for veterans: a workshop. April 20, 2023. Accessed May 8, 2023. https://www.nationalacademies.org/documents/embed/link/LF2255DA3DD1C41C0A42D3BEF0989ACAECE3053A6A9B/file/D2C4B73BA6FFCAA81E6C4FC7C57020A5BA54376245AD?noSaveAs=1
8 Snoswell CL, Chelberg G, De Guzman KR, et al. The clinical effectiveness of telehealth: A systematic review of meta-analyses from 2010 to 2019. J Telemed Telecare. 2021;1357633X211022907. doi:10.1177/1357633X211022907
Depression: Clinical Presentation
AHA flags differing CVD risk in Asian American subgroups
Asian Americans have significant differences in genetics, socioeconomic factors, culture, diet, lifestyle, and acculturation levels based on the Asian region of their ancestry that likely have unique effects on their risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease, the statement noted.
“Examining Asian subgroups separately is crucial to better understand the distinctions among them, how these differences translate into their risk of type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic disease, and how health care professionals may provide care and support in a culturally appropriate manner,” writing group chair Tak W. Kwan, MD, chief of cardiology, Lenox Health Greenwich Village, and clinical professor of medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, said in a news release.
The statement was published online in the journal Circulation.
Impact on health outcomes
Asian American subgroups are broadly categorized by the geographic region of Asian descent and include South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Bhutan); East Asia (Japan, China, or Korea); Southeast Asia (Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hmong); and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific islands).
Asian Americans make up the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States. Together, type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are the leading causes of illness and death among Asian American adults.
Yet, there is significant variability in prevalence and risk factors within the different subgroups, the writing group pointed out.
For example, based on available data, rates of coronary artery disease (CAD) among Asian Americans indicate an overall prevalence of 8% in men and about 3% in women.
However, available data for subgroups suggest higher CAD rates among Asian Indian Americans (13% for men and 4.4% for women) and Filipino Americans (about 9% and 4%, respectively).
Available data on T2D among Asian American subgroups also show varied prevalence and risk.
A study from California found overall, Asian American adults had higher rates of T2D (range of 15.6%-34.5%) compared with non-Hispanic White adults (12.8%). Among Chinese Americans, the rate was 15.8%. Among Korean and Japanese Americans, rates were about 18% and among Americans with Filipino ancestry, the rate was nearly 32%.
Yet most studies to date aggregate Asian Americans in a single group and do not examine the subgroups individually, which is a challenge to providing evidence-based recommendations, the writing group said.
“Particular attention should focus on the T2D and ASCVD risk differences among the different Asian American subgroups because they may affect the precision in clinical and health outcomes,” the group suggested.
“Culturally specific recommendations and interventions across the different Asian American subgroups related to T2D and ASCVD will help improve primary and secondary prevention and health outcomes in this population,” they added.
The writing group noted that existing CVD risk calculators, which are based on data validated in non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults and less extensively studied in Asian Americans, may underestimate the risk of T2D and heart disease in South Asian adults, those of lower socioeconomic status, or those with chronic inflammatory diseases.
On the other hand, these tools may overestimate CVD risk among East Asians, those with higher socioeconomic status or those who are already participating in preventive healthcare services.
Advances in epidemiology and data analysis and the availability of larger, representative cohorts will allow for refinement of pooled cohort equations to better gauge ASCVD risk in Asian American subgroups, the group said.
Filling in the gaps
The writing group outlined several key areas to consider for strengthening the data about Asian American adults. Chief among them is the need to include disaggregated data on Asian American subgroups in clinical trials and government-sponsored studies.
Another is to standardize ways of collecting ethnic and subgroup data for Asian Americans for national health systems, surveys, and registries. National surveillance surveys should consider oversampling Asian Americans to increase representation for the various subgroups, the writing group suggested.
“All of us – health care professionals, policymakers, community leaders and patients – must advocate for more health research funding for Asian Americans and demand inclusion of Asian American subgroup information in clinical trials and government-sponsored research,” Dr. Kwan said.
“Having a platform to share and disseminate data on Asian Americans for the scientific and research community would also be an asset for the health care professionals who care for this population,” Dr. Kwan added.
The new scientific statement is a follow-up to a 2010 AHA “call to action” to seek data on health disparities among Asian American subgroups and a 2018 scientific statement addressing CVD risk in South Asians (Asian Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Nepali, or Bhutanese).
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Asian Americans have significant differences in genetics, socioeconomic factors, culture, diet, lifestyle, and acculturation levels based on the Asian region of their ancestry that likely have unique effects on their risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease, the statement noted.
“Examining Asian subgroups separately is crucial to better understand the distinctions among them, how these differences translate into their risk of type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic disease, and how health care professionals may provide care and support in a culturally appropriate manner,” writing group chair Tak W. Kwan, MD, chief of cardiology, Lenox Health Greenwich Village, and clinical professor of medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, said in a news release.
The statement was published online in the journal Circulation.
Impact on health outcomes
Asian American subgroups are broadly categorized by the geographic region of Asian descent and include South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Bhutan); East Asia (Japan, China, or Korea); Southeast Asia (Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hmong); and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific islands).
Asian Americans make up the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States. Together, type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are the leading causes of illness and death among Asian American adults.
Yet, there is significant variability in prevalence and risk factors within the different subgroups, the writing group pointed out.
For example, based on available data, rates of coronary artery disease (CAD) among Asian Americans indicate an overall prevalence of 8% in men and about 3% in women.
However, available data for subgroups suggest higher CAD rates among Asian Indian Americans (13% for men and 4.4% for women) and Filipino Americans (about 9% and 4%, respectively).
Available data on T2D among Asian American subgroups also show varied prevalence and risk.
A study from California found overall, Asian American adults had higher rates of T2D (range of 15.6%-34.5%) compared with non-Hispanic White adults (12.8%). Among Chinese Americans, the rate was 15.8%. Among Korean and Japanese Americans, rates were about 18% and among Americans with Filipino ancestry, the rate was nearly 32%.
Yet most studies to date aggregate Asian Americans in a single group and do not examine the subgroups individually, which is a challenge to providing evidence-based recommendations, the writing group said.
“Particular attention should focus on the T2D and ASCVD risk differences among the different Asian American subgroups because they may affect the precision in clinical and health outcomes,” the group suggested.
“Culturally specific recommendations and interventions across the different Asian American subgroups related to T2D and ASCVD will help improve primary and secondary prevention and health outcomes in this population,” they added.
The writing group noted that existing CVD risk calculators, which are based on data validated in non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults and less extensively studied in Asian Americans, may underestimate the risk of T2D and heart disease in South Asian adults, those of lower socioeconomic status, or those with chronic inflammatory diseases.
On the other hand, these tools may overestimate CVD risk among East Asians, those with higher socioeconomic status or those who are already participating in preventive healthcare services.
Advances in epidemiology and data analysis and the availability of larger, representative cohorts will allow for refinement of pooled cohort equations to better gauge ASCVD risk in Asian American subgroups, the group said.
Filling in the gaps
The writing group outlined several key areas to consider for strengthening the data about Asian American adults. Chief among them is the need to include disaggregated data on Asian American subgroups in clinical trials and government-sponsored studies.
Another is to standardize ways of collecting ethnic and subgroup data for Asian Americans for national health systems, surveys, and registries. National surveillance surveys should consider oversampling Asian Americans to increase representation for the various subgroups, the writing group suggested.
“All of us – health care professionals, policymakers, community leaders and patients – must advocate for more health research funding for Asian Americans and demand inclusion of Asian American subgroup information in clinical trials and government-sponsored research,” Dr. Kwan said.
“Having a platform to share and disseminate data on Asian Americans for the scientific and research community would also be an asset for the health care professionals who care for this population,” Dr. Kwan added.
The new scientific statement is a follow-up to a 2010 AHA “call to action” to seek data on health disparities among Asian American subgroups and a 2018 scientific statement addressing CVD risk in South Asians (Asian Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Nepali, or Bhutanese).
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Asian Americans have significant differences in genetics, socioeconomic factors, culture, diet, lifestyle, and acculturation levels based on the Asian region of their ancestry that likely have unique effects on their risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease, the statement noted.
“Examining Asian subgroups separately is crucial to better understand the distinctions among them, how these differences translate into their risk of type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic disease, and how health care professionals may provide care and support in a culturally appropriate manner,” writing group chair Tak W. Kwan, MD, chief of cardiology, Lenox Health Greenwich Village, and clinical professor of medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, said in a news release.
The statement was published online in the journal Circulation.
Impact on health outcomes
Asian American subgroups are broadly categorized by the geographic region of Asian descent and include South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Bhutan); East Asia (Japan, China, or Korea); Southeast Asia (Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hmong); and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific islands).
Asian Americans make up the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States. Together, type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are the leading causes of illness and death among Asian American adults.
Yet, there is significant variability in prevalence and risk factors within the different subgroups, the writing group pointed out.
For example, based on available data, rates of coronary artery disease (CAD) among Asian Americans indicate an overall prevalence of 8% in men and about 3% in women.
However, available data for subgroups suggest higher CAD rates among Asian Indian Americans (13% for men and 4.4% for women) and Filipino Americans (about 9% and 4%, respectively).
Available data on T2D among Asian American subgroups also show varied prevalence and risk.
A study from California found overall, Asian American adults had higher rates of T2D (range of 15.6%-34.5%) compared with non-Hispanic White adults (12.8%). Among Chinese Americans, the rate was 15.8%. Among Korean and Japanese Americans, rates were about 18% and among Americans with Filipino ancestry, the rate was nearly 32%.
Yet most studies to date aggregate Asian Americans in a single group and do not examine the subgroups individually, which is a challenge to providing evidence-based recommendations, the writing group said.
“Particular attention should focus on the T2D and ASCVD risk differences among the different Asian American subgroups because they may affect the precision in clinical and health outcomes,” the group suggested.
“Culturally specific recommendations and interventions across the different Asian American subgroups related to T2D and ASCVD will help improve primary and secondary prevention and health outcomes in this population,” they added.
The writing group noted that existing CVD risk calculators, which are based on data validated in non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults and less extensively studied in Asian Americans, may underestimate the risk of T2D and heart disease in South Asian adults, those of lower socioeconomic status, or those with chronic inflammatory diseases.
On the other hand, these tools may overestimate CVD risk among East Asians, those with higher socioeconomic status or those who are already participating in preventive healthcare services.
Advances in epidemiology and data analysis and the availability of larger, representative cohorts will allow for refinement of pooled cohort equations to better gauge ASCVD risk in Asian American subgroups, the group said.
Filling in the gaps
The writing group outlined several key areas to consider for strengthening the data about Asian American adults. Chief among them is the need to include disaggregated data on Asian American subgroups in clinical trials and government-sponsored studies.
Another is to standardize ways of collecting ethnic and subgroup data for Asian Americans for national health systems, surveys, and registries. National surveillance surveys should consider oversampling Asian Americans to increase representation for the various subgroups, the writing group suggested.
“All of us – health care professionals, policymakers, community leaders and patients – must advocate for more health research funding for Asian Americans and demand inclusion of Asian American subgroup information in clinical trials and government-sponsored research,” Dr. Kwan said.
“Having a platform to share and disseminate data on Asian Americans for the scientific and research community would also be an asset for the health care professionals who care for this population,” Dr. Kwan added.
The new scientific statement is a follow-up to a 2010 AHA “call to action” to seek data on health disparities among Asian American subgroups and a 2018 scientific statement addressing CVD risk in South Asians (Asian Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Nepali, or Bhutanese).
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
Medications that scare me
An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.
Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?
A. Citalopram
B. Pravastatin
C. Donepezil
D. Isosorbide
E. Calcium
This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.
Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.1 They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.
Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.2 Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.3 They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).
Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.4 Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.
Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.5
Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.6 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.7
Pearls
- Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
- Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.
2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.
3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.
4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.
5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.
6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.
7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.
An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.
Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?
A. Citalopram
B. Pravastatin
C. Donepezil
D. Isosorbide
E. Calcium
This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.
Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.1 They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.
Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.2 Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.3 They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).
Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.4 Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.
Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.5
Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.6 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.7
Pearls
- Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
- Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.
2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.
3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.
4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.
5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.
6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.
7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.
An 85-year-old woman is brought to the emergency department after a syncopal episode. Her caregivers report a similar episode 2 weeks ago, but she recovered so quickly they did not seek evaluation for her.
Medications: Omeprazole 20 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, citalopram 10 mg, albuterol, donepezil 10 mg, isosorbide mononitrate 60 mg, and calcium. On exam, blood pressure is 100/60 mm Hg, pulse 55. ECG indicates bradycardia with normal intervals. What drug most likely caused her syncope?
A. Citalopram
B. Pravastatin
C. Donepezil
D. Isosorbide
E. Calcium
This woman’s syncope is likely caused by donepezil. Citalopram can lengthen the QT interval, especially in elderly patients, but the normal intervals on ECG eliminate this possibility. Donepezil can cause bradycardia, which can contribute to syncope.
Hernandez and colleagues evaluated a cohort of veterans with dementia over an 8-year period.1 They found that there was a 1.4-fold increased risk of bradycardia in patients with dementia treated with an acetylcholine inhibitor (compared with that in patients who were not taking these medications) and that there was a dose-dependent increase in risk for patients on donepezil.
Park-Wyllie et al. found in a study of 1.4 million older adults a greater than twofold risk of hospitalization for bradycardia in patients treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor.2 Gill and colleagues performed a population-based cohort study of 19,803 elderly patients with dementia who were prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors, and compared them to age-matched controls.3 They found increased hospital visits for syncope in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors (hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-1.98). Other syncope-related events were also more common in people receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, compared with controls: hospital visits for bradycardia (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.15), permanent pacemaker insertion (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-2.00), and hip fracture (HR, 1.18; (95% CI, 1.04-1.34).
Nausea, vomiting, and weight loss are much more common than the rarer side effects of bradycardia and syncope. The frequency of gastroenterological side effects is up to 25%. Cholinesterase inhibitors have modest effects on cognitive function with a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 10, and an NNT as high as 100 for global function. The number needed to harm (NNH) is 4, when gastrointestinal symptoms are added in.4 Another important, problematic side effect of cholinesterase inhibitors is urinary incontinence. This often leads to patients receiving medications, to combat this side effect, that may worsen cognitive function.
Another commonly used medication that scares me in certain circumstances is trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. My main concern is when it is used in patients who are elderly, have chronic kidney disease, or are taking other medications that can cause hyperkalemia (ACEIs, ARBs, potassium-sparing diuretics including spironolactone). Hyperkalemia is a real concern in these patient populations. Trimethoprim reduces renal potassium excretion through the competitive inhibition of sodium channels in the distal nephron, in a manner similar to the potassium-sparing diuretic amiloride. Hospitalizations for hyperkalemia are more common in patients who take ACEIs and ARBs and are prescribed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, compared with other antibiotics.5
Sudden cardiac death is also more common in patients who are taking ACEIs or ARBs and receive trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.6 Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole also has a powerful interaction with warfarin, both displacing warfarin from albumin and inhibiting its metabolism. It raises the INR (international normalized ratio) in warfarin-treated patients much greater than do other antibiotics.7
Pearls
- Think carefully about the use of cholinesterase inhibitors because of the unfavorable NNH vs. NNT.
- Use caution prescribing trimethoprim for patients who are elderly, especially if they are on an ACEI, an ARB, or spironolactone, and in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. Hernandez RK et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1997-2003.
2. Park-Wyllie LY et al. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157.
3. Gill SS et al. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:867-73.
4. Peters KR. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jul;61(7):1170-4.
5. Antoniou TN et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1045-9.
6. Fralick M et al. BMJ. 2014 Oct 30;349:g6196.
7. Glasheen JJ et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jul;20(7):653-6.
Young men at highest schizophrenia risk from cannabis abuse
A new study confirms the robust link between cannabis use and schizophrenia among men and women but suggests that young men may be especially susceptible to schizophrenia from cannabis abuse.
Of note, 
“The entanglement of substance use disorders and mental illnesses is a major public health issue, requiring urgent action and support for people who need it,” study coauthor Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a news release.
“As access to potent cannabis products continues to expand, it is crucial that we also expand prevention, screening, and treatment for people who may experience mental illnesses associated with cannabis use,” Dr. Volkow added.
The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
A modifiable risk factor
The researchers analyzed Danish registry data spanning 5 decades and representing more than 6.9 million people in Denmark to estimate the population-level percentage of schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD.
A total of 60,563 participants were diagnosed with CUD. Three-quarters of cases were in men; there were 45,327 incident cases of schizophrenia during the study period.
The overall adjusted hazard ratio for CUD on schizophrenia was slightly higher among males than females (aHR, 2.42 vs. 2.02); however, among those aged 16 to 20 years, the adjusted incidence risk ratio for males was more than twice that for females (aIRR, 3.84 vs. 1.81).
The researchers estimate that, in 2021, about 15% of schizophrenia cases among males aged 16-49 could have been avoided by preventing CUD, compared with 4% among females in this age range.
For young men aged 21-30, the proportion of preventable schizophrenia cases related to CUD may be as high as 30%, the authors reported.
“Alongside the increasing evidence that CUD is a modifiable risk factor for schizophrenia, our findings underscore the importance of evidence-based strategies to regulate cannabis use and to effectively prevent, screen for, and treat CUD as well as schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote.
Legalization sends the wrong message
In a press statement, lead investigator Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, with the University of Copenhagen, noted that “increases in the legalization of cannabis over the past few decades have made it one of the most frequently used psychoactive substances in the world, while also decreasing the public’s perception of its harm. This study adds to our growing understanding that cannabis use is not harmless, and that risks are not fixed at one point in time.”
In a prior study, Dr. Hjorthøj and colleagues found that the proportion of new schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD has consistently increased over the past 20 years.
“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” Dr. Hjorthøj said at the time this research was published.
“It is of course nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” Dr. Hjorthøj added.
The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study confirms the robust link between cannabis use and schizophrenia among men and women but suggests that young men may be especially susceptible to schizophrenia from cannabis abuse.
Of note,
“The entanglement of substance use disorders and mental illnesses is a major public health issue, requiring urgent action and support for people who need it,” study coauthor Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a news release.
“As access to potent cannabis products continues to expand, it is crucial that we also expand prevention, screening, and treatment for people who may experience mental illnesses associated with cannabis use,” Dr. Volkow added.
The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
A modifiable risk factor
The researchers analyzed Danish registry data spanning 5 decades and representing more than 6.9 million people in Denmark to estimate the population-level percentage of schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD.
A total of 60,563 participants were diagnosed with CUD. Three-quarters of cases were in men; there were 45,327 incident cases of schizophrenia during the study period.
The overall adjusted hazard ratio for CUD on schizophrenia was slightly higher among males than females (aHR, 2.42 vs. 2.02); however, among those aged 16 to 20 years, the adjusted incidence risk ratio for males was more than twice that for females (aIRR, 3.84 vs. 1.81).
The researchers estimate that, in 2021, about 15% of schizophrenia cases among males aged 16-49 could have been avoided by preventing CUD, compared with 4% among females in this age range.
For young men aged 21-30, the proportion of preventable schizophrenia cases related to CUD may be as high as 30%, the authors reported.
“Alongside the increasing evidence that CUD is a modifiable risk factor for schizophrenia, our findings underscore the importance of evidence-based strategies to regulate cannabis use and to effectively prevent, screen for, and treat CUD as well as schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote.
Legalization sends the wrong message
In a press statement, lead investigator Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, with the University of Copenhagen, noted that “increases in the legalization of cannabis over the past few decades have made it one of the most frequently used psychoactive substances in the world, while also decreasing the public’s perception of its harm. This study adds to our growing understanding that cannabis use is not harmless, and that risks are not fixed at one point in time.”
In a prior study, Dr. Hjorthøj and colleagues found that the proportion of new schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD has consistently increased over the past 20 years.
“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” Dr. Hjorthøj said at the time this research was published.
“It is of course nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” Dr. Hjorthøj added.
The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study confirms the robust link between cannabis use and schizophrenia among men and women but suggests that young men may be especially susceptible to schizophrenia from cannabis abuse.
Of note,
“The entanglement of substance use disorders and mental illnesses is a major public health issue, requiring urgent action and support for people who need it,” study coauthor Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said in a news release.
“As access to potent cannabis products continues to expand, it is crucial that we also expand prevention, screening, and treatment for people who may experience mental illnesses associated with cannabis use,” Dr. Volkow added.
The study was published online in Psychological Medicine.
A modifiable risk factor
The researchers analyzed Danish registry data spanning 5 decades and representing more than 6.9 million people in Denmark to estimate the population-level percentage of schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD.
A total of 60,563 participants were diagnosed with CUD. Three-quarters of cases were in men; there were 45,327 incident cases of schizophrenia during the study period.
The overall adjusted hazard ratio for CUD on schizophrenia was slightly higher among males than females (aHR, 2.42 vs. 2.02); however, among those aged 16 to 20 years, the adjusted incidence risk ratio for males was more than twice that for females (aIRR, 3.84 vs. 1.81).
The researchers estimate that, in 2021, about 15% of schizophrenia cases among males aged 16-49 could have been avoided by preventing CUD, compared with 4% among females in this age range.
For young men aged 21-30, the proportion of preventable schizophrenia cases related to CUD may be as high as 30%, the authors reported.
“Alongside the increasing evidence that CUD is a modifiable risk factor for schizophrenia, our findings underscore the importance of evidence-based strategies to regulate cannabis use and to effectively prevent, screen for, and treat CUD as well as schizophrenia,” the researchers wrote.
Legalization sends the wrong message
In a press statement, lead investigator Carsten Hjorthøj, PhD, with the University of Copenhagen, noted that “increases in the legalization of cannabis over the past few decades have made it one of the most frequently used psychoactive substances in the world, while also decreasing the public’s perception of its harm. This study adds to our growing understanding that cannabis use is not harmless, and that risks are not fixed at one point in time.”
In a prior study, Dr. Hjorthøj and colleagues found that the proportion of new schizophrenia cases attributable to CUD has consistently increased over the past 20 years.
“In my view, the association is most likely causative, at least to a large extent,” Dr. Hjorthøj said at the time this research was published.
“It is of course nearly impossible to use epidemiological studies to actually prove causation, but all the numbers behave exactly in the way that would be expected under the theory of causation,” Dr. Hjorthøj added.
The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
Helmet interface for ventilation likely superior in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure
For adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), treatment using a helmet interface is likely superior to a face mask interface, according to a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials examining different noninvasive oxygenation strategies for AHRF treatment.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the benefits of optimizing noninvasive strategies to avoid unnecessary intubation. Intubation may be avoided in patients with AHRF through noninvasive oxygenation strategies, including high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive bilevel ventilation, noted Tyler Pitre, MD, department of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. CPAP and bilevel ventilation can be delivered through different interfaces, most commonly face mask or helmet. While research has shown noninvasive strategies to be associated with reductions in risk for invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality assessments and analyses comparing specific modalities (i.e., CPAP vs. bilevel ventilation) have been limited. The incremental reduction in diaphragmatic effort and improved gas exchange demonstrated for bilevel ventilation compared with CPAP in COPD patients suggests that responses in AHRF may differ for CPAP and bilevel ventilation, state Dr. Pitre and colleagues. On the other hand, the increased drive pressure of bilevel ventilation may compound patient self-induced lung injury with concomitant lung inflammation and need for prolonged respiratory support. New evidence from several large, high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19-related AHRF offered an opportunity to reassess comparative efficacies, the researchers noted.
The retrospective study encompassed RCTs with all types of AHRF, including COVID-19 related, with a total of 7,046 patients whose median age was 59.4 years (61.4% were males). Thirty of the 36 RCTs reported on mortality (6,114 patients and 1,539 deaths). The study’s analysis showed with moderate certainty that helmet CPAP reduces mortality (231 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 126-273]) while the 63 fewer deaths per 1,000 (95% CI, 15-102) indicated with low certainty that HFNC may reduce mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT). The analysis showed also that face mask bilevel (36 fewer deaths per 1,000 [84.0 fewer to 24.0 more]) and helmet bilevel ventilation (129.0 fewer deaths per 1,000 [195.0 to 24.0 fewer]) may reduce death compared with SOT (all low certainty). The mortality benefit for face mask CPAP compared with SOT was uncertain (very low certainty) (9 fewer deaths per 1,000 [81 fewer deaths to 84 more]). For helmet CPAP vs. HFNC ventilation, the mortality benefit had moderate certainty (198.1 fewer events per 1,000 [95% CI, 69.75-248.31].
Mechanical ventilation and ICU duration
The authors found that HFNC probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000 [40.5-157.5 fewer]; moderate certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation and helmet CPAP may reduce the duration of ICU stay compared with SOT (both low certainty) at (4.84 days fewer [95% CI 2.33 to 16 7.36 days fewer]) and (1.74 days fewer [95% CI 4.49 fewer to 1.01 more]), respectively. Also, SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and no different in comfort compared with HFNC (both low certainty).
“Helmet noninvasive ventilation interfaces is probably effective in acute hypoxic respiratory failure and is superior to face mask interfaces. All modalities including HFNC probably reduce the risk of need for invasive mechanical ventilation,” the researchers wrote.
“This meta-analysis shows that helmet noninvasive ventilation is effective in reducing death, and need for invasive mechanical ventilation based on a moderate certainty of evidence,” Shyamsunder Subramanian, MD, chief, division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, Sutter Health, Tracy, Calif., said in an interview. “It is premature based on the results of this meta-analysis to conclude that guideline changes are needed. Use of helmet based ventilation remains limited in scope. We need appropriately designed prospective trials across multiple centers to get sufficient rigor of scientific evidence before any change in guidelines or practice recommendations can be formulated about the appropriate use of helmet NIV in acute respiratory failure.”
The researchers cited the relative heterogeneity of the population included in this analysis as a study limitation.
Dr. Pitre and Dr. Subramanian disclosed that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.
For adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), treatment using a helmet interface is likely superior to a face mask interface, according to a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials examining different noninvasive oxygenation strategies for AHRF treatment.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the benefits of optimizing noninvasive strategies to avoid unnecessary intubation. Intubation may be avoided in patients with AHRF through noninvasive oxygenation strategies, including high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive bilevel ventilation, noted Tyler Pitre, MD, department of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. CPAP and bilevel ventilation can be delivered through different interfaces, most commonly face mask or helmet. While research has shown noninvasive strategies to be associated with reductions in risk for invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality assessments and analyses comparing specific modalities (i.e., CPAP vs. bilevel ventilation) have been limited. The incremental reduction in diaphragmatic effort and improved gas exchange demonstrated for bilevel ventilation compared with CPAP in COPD patients suggests that responses in AHRF may differ for CPAP and bilevel ventilation, state Dr. Pitre and colleagues. On the other hand, the increased drive pressure of bilevel ventilation may compound patient self-induced lung injury with concomitant lung inflammation and need for prolonged respiratory support. New evidence from several large, high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19-related AHRF offered an opportunity to reassess comparative efficacies, the researchers noted.
The retrospective study encompassed RCTs with all types of AHRF, including COVID-19 related, with a total of 7,046 patients whose median age was 59.4 years (61.4% were males). Thirty of the 36 RCTs reported on mortality (6,114 patients and 1,539 deaths). The study’s analysis showed with moderate certainty that helmet CPAP reduces mortality (231 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 126-273]) while the 63 fewer deaths per 1,000 (95% CI, 15-102) indicated with low certainty that HFNC may reduce mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT). The analysis showed also that face mask bilevel (36 fewer deaths per 1,000 [84.0 fewer to 24.0 more]) and helmet bilevel ventilation (129.0 fewer deaths per 1,000 [195.0 to 24.0 fewer]) may reduce death compared with SOT (all low certainty). The mortality benefit for face mask CPAP compared with SOT was uncertain (very low certainty) (9 fewer deaths per 1,000 [81 fewer deaths to 84 more]). For helmet CPAP vs. HFNC ventilation, the mortality benefit had moderate certainty (198.1 fewer events per 1,000 [95% CI, 69.75-248.31].
Mechanical ventilation and ICU duration
The authors found that HFNC probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000 [40.5-157.5 fewer]; moderate certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation and helmet CPAP may reduce the duration of ICU stay compared with SOT (both low certainty) at (4.84 days fewer [95% CI 2.33 to 16 7.36 days fewer]) and (1.74 days fewer [95% CI 4.49 fewer to 1.01 more]), respectively. Also, SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and no different in comfort compared with HFNC (both low certainty).
“Helmet noninvasive ventilation interfaces is probably effective in acute hypoxic respiratory failure and is superior to face mask interfaces. All modalities including HFNC probably reduce the risk of need for invasive mechanical ventilation,” the researchers wrote.
“This meta-analysis shows that helmet noninvasive ventilation is effective in reducing death, and need for invasive mechanical ventilation based on a moderate certainty of evidence,” Shyamsunder Subramanian, MD, chief, division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, Sutter Health, Tracy, Calif., said in an interview. “It is premature based on the results of this meta-analysis to conclude that guideline changes are needed. Use of helmet based ventilation remains limited in scope. We need appropriately designed prospective trials across multiple centers to get sufficient rigor of scientific evidence before any change in guidelines or practice recommendations can be formulated about the appropriate use of helmet NIV in acute respiratory failure.”
The researchers cited the relative heterogeneity of the population included in this analysis as a study limitation.
Dr. Pitre and Dr. Subramanian disclosed that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.
For adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), treatment using a helmet interface is likely superior to a face mask interface, according to a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials examining different noninvasive oxygenation strategies for AHRF treatment.
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the benefits of optimizing noninvasive strategies to avoid unnecessary intubation. Intubation may be avoided in patients with AHRF through noninvasive oxygenation strategies, including high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive bilevel ventilation, noted Tyler Pitre, MD, department of medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and colleagues. CPAP and bilevel ventilation can be delivered through different interfaces, most commonly face mask or helmet. While research has shown noninvasive strategies to be associated with reductions in risk for invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality assessments and analyses comparing specific modalities (i.e., CPAP vs. bilevel ventilation) have been limited. The incremental reduction in diaphragmatic effort and improved gas exchange demonstrated for bilevel ventilation compared with CPAP in COPD patients suggests that responses in AHRF may differ for CPAP and bilevel ventilation, state Dr. Pitre and colleagues. On the other hand, the increased drive pressure of bilevel ventilation may compound patient self-induced lung injury with concomitant lung inflammation and need for prolonged respiratory support. New evidence from several large, high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in COVID-19-related AHRF offered an opportunity to reassess comparative efficacies, the researchers noted.
The retrospective study encompassed RCTs with all types of AHRF, including COVID-19 related, with a total of 7,046 patients whose median age was 59.4 years (61.4% were males). Thirty of the 36 RCTs reported on mortality (6,114 patients and 1,539 deaths). The study’s analysis showed with moderate certainty that helmet CPAP reduces mortality (231 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 126-273]) while the 63 fewer deaths per 1,000 (95% CI, 15-102) indicated with low certainty that HFNC may reduce mortality compared with standard oxygen therapy (SOT). The analysis showed also that face mask bilevel (36 fewer deaths per 1,000 [84.0 fewer to 24.0 more]) and helmet bilevel ventilation (129.0 fewer deaths per 1,000 [195.0 to 24.0 fewer]) may reduce death compared with SOT (all low certainty). The mortality benefit for face mask CPAP compared with SOT was uncertain (very low certainty) (9 fewer deaths per 1,000 [81 fewer deaths to 84 more]). For helmet CPAP vs. HFNC ventilation, the mortality benefit had moderate certainty (198.1 fewer events per 1,000 [95% CI, 69.75-248.31].
Mechanical ventilation and ICU duration
The authors found that HFNC probably reduces the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (103.5 fewer events per 1,000 [40.5-157.5 fewer]; moderate certainty). Helmet bilevel ventilation and helmet CPAP may reduce the duration of ICU stay compared with SOT (both low certainty) at (4.84 days fewer [95% CI 2.33 to 16 7.36 days fewer]) and (1.74 days fewer [95% CI 4.49 fewer to 1.01 more]), respectively. Also, SOT may be more comfortable than face mask noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and no different in comfort compared with HFNC (both low certainty).
“Helmet noninvasive ventilation interfaces is probably effective in acute hypoxic respiratory failure and is superior to face mask interfaces. All modalities including HFNC probably reduce the risk of need for invasive mechanical ventilation,” the researchers wrote.
“This meta-analysis shows that helmet noninvasive ventilation is effective in reducing death, and need for invasive mechanical ventilation based on a moderate certainty of evidence,” Shyamsunder Subramanian, MD, chief, division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, Sutter Health, Tracy, Calif., said in an interview. “It is premature based on the results of this meta-analysis to conclude that guideline changes are needed. Use of helmet based ventilation remains limited in scope. We need appropriately designed prospective trials across multiple centers to get sufficient rigor of scientific evidence before any change in guidelines or practice recommendations can be formulated about the appropriate use of helmet NIV in acute respiratory failure.”
The researchers cited the relative heterogeneity of the population included in this analysis as a study limitation.
Dr. Pitre and Dr. Subramanian disclosed that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM CHEST
1,726-nm lasers poised to revolutionize acne treatment, expert predicts
PHOENIX – When Jeffrey Dover, MD, addressed audience members gathered for a session on cutting-edge technologies at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, he reflected on a conversation he had with R. Rox Anderson, MD, almost 40 years ago, about eventually finding a cure for acne.
“Despite the fact that we have over-the-counter therapies, prescription therapies, and all kinds of devices available to treat acne, there are still barriers to care that get in the way of treatment,” said Dr. Dover, director of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass. “If we had a device based on innovative light science that could meet the needs of the acne patient to get rid of these barriers, wouldn’t that be something wonderful?”
The answer to this question, he said, is now “yes,” because of advances in lasers that target sebaceous glands.
In a seminal paper published in 2012, Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD, Dr. Anderson, and colleagues demonstrated the potential for a free electron laser to target sebaceous glands . Following several years of refinement, Dr. Dover said.
“With the 1,726-nm laser, there is some selective absorption in sebum in skin, which beats out absorption in the other chromophores,” he said. “But it’s not a big difference like it is, for example, for pulsed-dye lasers and vascular targets. ... This means that the therapeutic window is relatively small and protecting the rest of the epidermis and dermis is crucial to be able to target these lesions or the sebaceous gland without unnecessary damage. If we can protect the epidermis and heat just the sebaceous glands, we should be able to get Accutane-like results if we get durability [by] shrinking sebaceous glands.”
Effective cooling, whether contact cooling, bulk cooling, or air cooling, is crucial to success, he continued. “It’s got to be robust and highly specific to protect the skin, so you don’t end up with side effects that are worse than the disease.”
The AviClear laser delivers seven 3-mm spots, which takes into account the thermal relaxation times of the sebaceous glands. The algorithm delivers a treatment imprint at roughly 0.3 Hz and a 1.5-mm depth of penetration, and the device relies on contact cooling. In pivotal data submitted to the FDA, 104 individuals with moderate to severe acne received three treatments with the AviClear 1 month apart, with follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post treatment. They had no other treatment regimens, and the primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count 3 months after the final treatment. The secondary endpoint was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) improvement of 2 or greater.
Dr. Dover, who helped design the study, said that, at 3 months, 80% of those treated achieved a 50% or greater reduction in inflammatory lesion count (P < .001). As for secondary endpoints, 36% of individuals were assessed as having clear or almost clear skin; 47% achieved a 2-point or greater improvement in IGA score, compared with baseline, and 87% achieved a 1-point or greater improvement in IGA score, compared with baseline. By 6 months, 88% of individuals achieved a 50% or greater reduction in inflammatory lesion count; this improved to 92% by 12 months (P < .001).
“All of these procedures were done with no topical anesthetic, no intralesional anesthetic, and they tolerated these quite well,” he said. “There was no down time that required medical intervention after the treatments. All posttreatment erythema and swelling resolved quickly,” and 75% of the patients were “very satisfied” with the treatments.
The Accure Laser System features a proprietary technology that precisely controls thermal gradient depth. “So instead of guessing whether you are delivering the correct amount of heat, it actually tells you,” said Dr. Dover, a past president of the ASLMS and the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “It correlates surface and at-depth temperatures, and there’s an infrared camera for real-time accurate temperature monitoring.” The device features highly controlled air cooling and a pulsing pattern that ensures treatment of sebaceous glands of all sizes and at all depths. The clinical end marker is peak epidermal temperature.
In a study supported by Accure, the manufacturer, researchers evaluated the efficacy of the Accure Laser System in 35 subjects with types I to VI skin, who received four monthly treatments 30-45 minutes each, and were followed 12, 26, 39, and 52 weeks following their last treatment. To date, data out to 52 weeks is available for 17 study participants. According to Dr. Dover, the researchers found 80% clearance at 12 weeks following the last treatment, with continued improvement at 52 weeks. One hundred percent of subjects responded. Side effects included erythema, edema, crusting, blisters, and inflammatory papules. “None of these were medically significant,” he said.
As dermatologists begin to incorporate the AviClear and Accure devices into their practices, Dr. Dover said that he is reminded of the conversation he had some 40 years ago with Dr. Anderson about finding a cure for acne, and he feels a bit awestruck. “These 1,726-nm lasers are effective for treating acne. I personally think they are going to revolutionize the way we treat at least some of our patients with acne. They may both be effective for treating facial acne scars. Time will tell. Further study of both scarring and acne are needed to fully categorize the benefit and to optimize treatments.”
To date no direct clinical comparisons have been made between the AviClear and Accure devices.
Dr. Dover reported that he is a consultant for Cutera, the manufacturer for AviClear. He also performs research for the company.
PHOENIX – When Jeffrey Dover, MD, addressed audience members gathered for a session on cutting-edge technologies at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, he reflected on a conversation he had with R. Rox Anderson, MD, almost 40 years ago, about eventually finding a cure for acne.
“Despite the fact that we have over-the-counter therapies, prescription therapies, and all kinds of devices available to treat acne, there are still barriers to care that get in the way of treatment,” said Dr. Dover, director of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass. “If we had a device based on innovative light science that could meet the needs of the acne patient to get rid of these barriers, wouldn’t that be something wonderful?”
The answer to this question, he said, is now “yes,” because of advances in lasers that target sebaceous glands.
In a seminal paper published in 2012, Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD, Dr. Anderson, and colleagues demonstrated the potential for a free electron laser to target sebaceous glands . Following several years of refinement, Dr. Dover said.
“With the 1,726-nm laser, there is some selective absorption in sebum in skin, which beats out absorption in the other chromophores,” he said. “But it’s not a big difference like it is, for example, for pulsed-dye lasers and vascular targets. ... This means that the therapeutic window is relatively small and protecting the rest of the epidermis and dermis is crucial to be able to target these lesions or the sebaceous gland without unnecessary damage. If we can protect the epidermis and heat just the sebaceous glands, we should be able to get Accutane-like results if we get durability [by] shrinking sebaceous glands.”
Effective cooling, whether contact cooling, bulk cooling, or air cooling, is crucial to success, he continued. “It’s got to be robust and highly specific to protect the skin, so you don’t end up with side effects that are worse than the disease.”
The AviClear laser delivers seven 3-mm spots, which takes into account the thermal relaxation times of the sebaceous glands. The algorithm delivers a treatment imprint at roughly 0.3 Hz and a 1.5-mm depth of penetration, and the device relies on contact cooling. In pivotal data submitted to the FDA, 104 individuals with moderate to severe acne received three treatments with the AviClear 1 month apart, with follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post treatment. They had no other treatment regimens, and the primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count 3 months after the final treatment. The secondary endpoint was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) improvement of 2 or greater.
Dr. Dover, who helped design the study, said that, at 3 months, 80% of those treated achieved a 50% or greater reduction in inflammatory lesion count (P < .001). As for secondary endpoints, 36% of individuals were assessed as having clear or almost clear skin; 47% achieved a 2-point or greater improvement in IGA score, compared with baseline, and 87% achieved a 1-point or greater improvement in IGA score, compared with baseline. By 6 months, 88% of individuals achieved a 50% or greater reduction in inflammatory lesion count; this improved to 92% by 12 months (P < .001).
“All of these procedures were done with no topical anesthetic, no intralesional anesthetic, and they tolerated these quite well,” he said. “There was no down time that required medical intervention after the treatments. All posttreatment erythema and swelling resolved quickly,” and 75% of the patients were “very satisfied” with the treatments.
The Accure Laser System features a proprietary technology that precisely controls thermal gradient depth. “So instead of guessing whether you are delivering the correct amount of heat, it actually tells you,” said Dr. Dover, a past president of the ASLMS and the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “It correlates surface and at-depth temperatures, and there’s an infrared camera for real-time accurate temperature monitoring.” The device features highly controlled air cooling and a pulsing pattern that ensures treatment of sebaceous glands of all sizes and at all depths. The clinical end marker is peak epidermal temperature.
In a study supported by Accure, the manufacturer, researchers evaluated the efficacy of the Accure Laser System in 35 subjects with types I to VI skin, who received four monthly treatments 30-45 minutes each, and were followed 12, 26, 39, and 52 weeks following their last treatment. To date, data out to 52 weeks is available for 17 study participants. According to Dr. Dover, the researchers found 80% clearance at 12 weeks following the last treatment, with continued improvement at 52 weeks. One hundred percent of subjects responded. Side effects included erythema, edema, crusting, blisters, and inflammatory papules. “None of these were medically significant,” he said.
As dermatologists begin to incorporate the AviClear and Accure devices into their practices, Dr. Dover said that he is reminded of the conversation he had some 40 years ago with Dr. Anderson about finding a cure for acne, and he feels a bit awestruck. “These 1,726-nm lasers are effective for treating acne. I personally think they are going to revolutionize the way we treat at least some of our patients with acne. They may both be effective for treating facial acne scars. Time will tell. Further study of both scarring and acne are needed to fully categorize the benefit and to optimize treatments.”
To date no direct clinical comparisons have been made between the AviClear and Accure devices.
Dr. Dover reported that he is a consultant for Cutera, the manufacturer for AviClear. He also performs research for the company.
PHOENIX – When Jeffrey Dover, MD, addressed audience members gathered for a session on cutting-edge technologies at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, he reflected on a conversation he had with R. Rox Anderson, MD, almost 40 years ago, about eventually finding a cure for acne.
“Despite the fact that we have over-the-counter therapies, prescription therapies, and all kinds of devices available to treat acne, there are still barriers to care that get in the way of treatment,” said Dr. Dover, director of SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass. “If we had a device based on innovative light science that could meet the needs of the acne patient to get rid of these barriers, wouldn’t that be something wonderful?”
The answer to this question, he said, is now “yes,” because of advances in lasers that target sebaceous glands.
In a seminal paper published in 2012, Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD, Dr. Anderson, and colleagues demonstrated the potential for a free electron laser to target sebaceous glands . Following several years of refinement, Dr. Dover said.
“With the 1,726-nm laser, there is some selective absorption in sebum in skin, which beats out absorption in the other chromophores,” he said. “But it’s not a big difference like it is, for example, for pulsed-dye lasers and vascular targets. ... This means that the therapeutic window is relatively small and protecting the rest of the epidermis and dermis is crucial to be able to target these lesions or the sebaceous gland without unnecessary damage. If we can protect the epidermis and heat just the sebaceous glands, we should be able to get Accutane-like results if we get durability [by] shrinking sebaceous glands.”
Effective cooling, whether contact cooling, bulk cooling, or air cooling, is crucial to success, he continued. “It’s got to be robust and highly specific to protect the skin, so you don’t end up with side effects that are worse than the disease.”
The AviClear laser delivers seven 3-mm spots, which takes into account the thermal relaxation times of the sebaceous glands. The algorithm delivers a treatment imprint at roughly 0.3 Hz and a 1.5-mm depth of penetration, and the device relies on contact cooling. In pivotal data submitted to the FDA, 104 individuals with moderate to severe acne received three treatments with the AviClear 1 month apart, with follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post treatment. They had no other treatment regimens, and the primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved a 50% reduction in inflammatory lesion count 3 months after the final treatment. The secondary endpoint was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) improvement of 2 or greater.
Dr. Dover, who helped design the study, said that, at 3 months, 80% of those treated achieved a 50% or greater reduction in inflammatory lesion count (P < .001). As for secondary endpoints, 36% of individuals were assessed as having clear or almost clear skin; 47% achieved a 2-point or greater improvement in IGA score, compared with baseline, and 87% achieved a 1-point or greater improvement in IGA score, compared with baseline. By 6 months, 88% of individuals achieved a 50% or greater reduction in inflammatory lesion count; this improved to 92% by 12 months (P < .001).
“All of these procedures were done with no topical anesthetic, no intralesional anesthetic, and they tolerated these quite well,” he said. “There was no down time that required medical intervention after the treatments. All posttreatment erythema and swelling resolved quickly,” and 75% of the patients were “very satisfied” with the treatments.
The Accure Laser System features a proprietary technology that precisely controls thermal gradient depth. “So instead of guessing whether you are delivering the correct amount of heat, it actually tells you,” said Dr. Dover, a past president of the ASLMS and the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “It correlates surface and at-depth temperatures, and there’s an infrared camera for real-time accurate temperature monitoring.” The device features highly controlled air cooling and a pulsing pattern that ensures treatment of sebaceous glands of all sizes and at all depths. The clinical end marker is peak epidermal temperature.
In a study supported by Accure, the manufacturer, researchers evaluated the efficacy of the Accure Laser System in 35 subjects with types I to VI skin, who received four monthly treatments 30-45 minutes each, and were followed 12, 26, 39, and 52 weeks following their last treatment. To date, data out to 52 weeks is available for 17 study participants. According to Dr. Dover, the researchers found 80% clearance at 12 weeks following the last treatment, with continued improvement at 52 weeks. One hundred percent of subjects responded. Side effects included erythema, edema, crusting, blisters, and inflammatory papules. “None of these were medically significant,” he said.
As dermatologists begin to incorporate the AviClear and Accure devices into their practices, Dr. Dover said that he is reminded of the conversation he had some 40 years ago with Dr. Anderson about finding a cure for acne, and he feels a bit awestruck. “These 1,726-nm lasers are effective for treating acne. I personally think they are going to revolutionize the way we treat at least some of our patients with acne. They may both be effective for treating facial acne scars. Time will tell. Further study of both scarring and acne are needed to fully categorize the benefit and to optimize treatments.”
To date no direct clinical comparisons have been made between the AviClear and Accure devices.
Dr. Dover reported that he is a consultant for Cutera, the manufacturer for AviClear. He also performs research for the company.
AT ASLMS 2023
Interdisciplinary program reduced pediatric pain without pharmacology
WASHINGTON – A nonpharmacologic, interdisciplinary program significantly improved chronic pain in children and the quality of life for their families, based on data from 115 individuals.
Up to 40% of children experience chronic pain that affects their physical, psychosocial, and educational functioning, said Jessica Campanile, BA, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Although interdisciplinary pediatric pain rehabilitation programs have shown positive outcomes, very few use only nonpharmacologic treatments, said Ms. Campanile. In addition, few studies have explored the effects of a hospital-based program on the patients and their families.
Ms. Campanile and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of participants in an outpatient pain rehabilitation program at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between April 2016 and December 2019. Patients were evaluated by a pediatric rheumatologist, psychologist, and physical and occupational therapists.
Patients engaged in 2-3 hours of physical therapy (PT) and 2-3 hours of occupational therapy (OT) in a 1:1 ratio at least 5 days a week. Physical activities included stepping into and out of a tub, carrying laundry, and desensitizing to allodynia as needed. Participants also received individual and group cognitive-behavior therapy interventions from psychologists, and psychological support during PT and OT sessions if needed. Parents/caregivers were invited to separate individual and group therapy sessions as part of the program. The median age at admission to the program was 15 years, and 79% of the participants were female. Patients participated the program for a median of 17 days, and 87% were outpatients who came to the hospital for the program.
Pain was assessed based on the 0-10 verbal pain intensity scale, energy was assessed on a scale of 0-100, and functional disability was assessed on a scale of 0-60, with higher scores indicating more pain, more energy, and more self-perceived disability, respectively.
Overall, scores on measures of pain, disability, allodynia, and energy improved significantly from baseline to discharge from the program. Verbal pain intensity scores decreased on average from 7 to 5, disability scores decreased from 26 to 9, the proportion of patients reporting allodynia decreased from 86% to 61%, and the energy level score increased from 70 to 77. The trend continued at the first follow-up visit, conducted 2-3 months after discharge from the program. Notably, pain intensity further decreased from a median of 5 at program completion to a median of 2 at the first follow-up, Ms. Campanile said. Improvements in allodynia also were sustained at the first follow-up.
Quality of life measures related to physical, emotional, social, and cognitive function also improved significantly from baseline to completion of the program.
In addition, scores on a quality of life family impact survey improved significantly; in particular, parent health-related quality of life scores (Parent HRQoL) improved from 60 at baseline to 71 at the end of the program on a scale of 0 to 100. The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short duration and use of a convenience sample from a retrospective cohort, with data limited to electronic health records, Ms. Campanile said. The study also was not powered to examine differential treatments based on psychiatric conditions, and any psychiatric conditions were based on self-reports.
However, the results support the value of a nonpharmacologic interdisciplinary program as “a robust treatment for youth with chronic idiopathic pain, for both patients and the family unit,” she said.
“This study also supports the need for and benefit of additional counseling for patients and their caregivers prior to and during enrollment in a pain rehabilitation program,” she concluded.
Study supports effectiveness of drug-free pain management
“The management of pain in any age group can be challenging, especially with current concerns for opioid dependence and abuse,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.
“Chronic pain affects daily life for all populations, but for children, adolescents, and their families, it can have a long-lasting impact on growth and development, psychosocial and physical well-being,” Dr. Haut said. “Determining and testing nonpharmacologic alternative methods of pain control are extremely important.”
Given the debilitating effects of chronic pain, and the potential side effects and dependence that have been associated with use of pharmacologic modes of pain control, unique and creative solutions have begun to emerge and need further attention and study, she said.
However, “despite published research supporting the use of alternative and complementary approaches to pain control in children and adolescents, nonpharmacologic, collaborative, interprofessional approaches to pain control have not been widely shared in the literature,” she said.
“Barriers to this type of program include first and foremost a potential lack of financial and workforce-related resources,” Dr. Haut said. “Patient and family attendance at frequent health visits, daily or even every other day, may also hinder success, but opportunities for telehealth and family training to learn physical and occupational skills within this type of program may be beginning solutions.”
Additional research should be conducted at multiple children’s hospitals, with a larger number of children and adolescents at varying ages, with pain related to different diagnoses, and with the inclusion of collaborative methodology, said Dr. Haut. “The current study had some limitations, including the small sample size, predominantly female sex, and a short participation time frame utilizing retrospective review. Completing prospective research over a longer time frame can also yield generalizable results applicable to varied populations.”
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Campanile had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
WASHINGTON – A nonpharmacologic, interdisciplinary program significantly improved chronic pain in children and the quality of life for their families, based on data from 115 individuals.
Up to 40% of children experience chronic pain that affects their physical, psychosocial, and educational functioning, said Jessica Campanile, BA, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Although interdisciplinary pediatric pain rehabilitation programs have shown positive outcomes, very few use only nonpharmacologic treatments, said Ms. Campanile. In addition, few studies have explored the effects of a hospital-based program on the patients and their families.
Ms. Campanile and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of participants in an outpatient pain rehabilitation program at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between April 2016 and December 2019. Patients were evaluated by a pediatric rheumatologist, psychologist, and physical and occupational therapists.
Patients engaged in 2-3 hours of physical therapy (PT) and 2-3 hours of occupational therapy (OT) in a 1:1 ratio at least 5 days a week. Physical activities included stepping into and out of a tub, carrying laundry, and desensitizing to allodynia as needed. Participants also received individual and group cognitive-behavior therapy interventions from psychologists, and psychological support during PT and OT sessions if needed. Parents/caregivers were invited to separate individual and group therapy sessions as part of the program. The median age at admission to the program was 15 years, and 79% of the participants were female. Patients participated the program for a median of 17 days, and 87% were outpatients who came to the hospital for the program.
Pain was assessed based on the 0-10 verbal pain intensity scale, energy was assessed on a scale of 0-100, and functional disability was assessed on a scale of 0-60, with higher scores indicating more pain, more energy, and more self-perceived disability, respectively.
Overall, scores on measures of pain, disability, allodynia, and energy improved significantly from baseline to discharge from the program. Verbal pain intensity scores decreased on average from 7 to 5, disability scores decreased from 26 to 9, the proportion of patients reporting allodynia decreased from 86% to 61%, and the energy level score increased from 70 to 77. The trend continued at the first follow-up visit, conducted 2-3 months after discharge from the program. Notably, pain intensity further decreased from a median of 5 at program completion to a median of 2 at the first follow-up, Ms. Campanile said. Improvements in allodynia also were sustained at the first follow-up.
Quality of life measures related to physical, emotional, social, and cognitive function also improved significantly from baseline to completion of the program.
In addition, scores on a quality of life family impact survey improved significantly; in particular, parent health-related quality of life scores (Parent HRQoL) improved from 60 at baseline to 71 at the end of the program on a scale of 0 to 100. The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short duration and use of a convenience sample from a retrospective cohort, with data limited to electronic health records, Ms. Campanile said. The study also was not powered to examine differential treatments based on psychiatric conditions, and any psychiatric conditions were based on self-reports.
However, the results support the value of a nonpharmacologic interdisciplinary program as “a robust treatment for youth with chronic idiopathic pain, for both patients and the family unit,” she said.
“This study also supports the need for and benefit of additional counseling for patients and their caregivers prior to and during enrollment in a pain rehabilitation program,” she concluded.
Study supports effectiveness of drug-free pain management
“The management of pain in any age group can be challenging, especially with current concerns for opioid dependence and abuse,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.
“Chronic pain affects daily life for all populations, but for children, adolescents, and their families, it can have a long-lasting impact on growth and development, psychosocial and physical well-being,” Dr. Haut said. “Determining and testing nonpharmacologic alternative methods of pain control are extremely important.”
Given the debilitating effects of chronic pain, and the potential side effects and dependence that have been associated with use of pharmacologic modes of pain control, unique and creative solutions have begun to emerge and need further attention and study, she said.
However, “despite published research supporting the use of alternative and complementary approaches to pain control in children and adolescents, nonpharmacologic, collaborative, interprofessional approaches to pain control have not been widely shared in the literature,” she said.
“Barriers to this type of program include first and foremost a potential lack of financial and workforce-related resources,” Dr. Haut said. “Patient and family attendance at frequent health visits, daily or even every other day, may also hinder success, but opportunities for telehealth and family training to learn physical and occupational skills within this type of program may be beginning solutions.”
Additional research should be conducted at multiple children’s hospitals, with a larger number of children and adolescents at varying ages, with pain related to different diagnoses, and with the inclusion of collaborative methodology, said Dr. Haut. “The current study had some limitations, including the small sample size, predominantly female sex, and a short participation time frame utilizing retrospective review. Completing prospective research over a longer time frame can also yield generalizable results applicable to varied populations.”
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Campanile had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
WASHINGTON – A nonpharmacologic, interdisciplinary program significantly improved chronic pain in children and the quality of life for their families, based on data from 115 individuals.
Up to 40% of children experience chronic pain that affects their physical, psychosocial, and educational functioning, said Jessica Campanile, BA, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in a presentation at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Although interdisciplinary pediatric pain rehabilitation programs have shown positive outcomes, very few use only nonpharmacologic treatments, said Ms. Campanile. In addition, few studies have explored the effects of a hospital-based program on the patients and their families.
Ms. Campanile and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of participants in an outpatient pain rehabilitation program at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia between April 2016 and December 2019. Patients were evaluated by a pediatric rheumatologist, psychologist, and physical and occupational therapists.
Patients engaged in 2-3 hours of physical therapy (PT) and 2-3 hours of occupational therapy (OT) in a 1:1 ratio at least 5 days a week. Physical activities included stepping into and out of a tub, carrying laundry, and desensitizing to allodynia as needed. Participants also received individual and group cognitive-behavior therapy interventions from psychologists, and psychological support during PT and OT sessions if needed. Parents/caregivers were invited to separate individual and group therapy sessions as part of the program. The median age at admission to the program was 15 years, and 79% of the participants were female. Patients participated the program for a median of 17 days, and 87% were outpatients who came to the hospital for the program.
Pain was assessed based on the 0-10 verbal pain intensity scale, energy was assessed on a scale of 0-100, and functional disability was assessed on a scale of 0-60, with higher scores indicating more pain, more energy, and more self-perceived disability, respectively.
Overall, scores on measures of pain, disability, allodynia, and energy improved significantly from baseline to discharge from the program. Verbal pain intensity scores decreased on average from 7 to 5, disability scores decreased from 26 to 9, the proportion of patients reporting allodynia decreased from 86% to 61%, and the energy level score increased from 70 to 77. The trend continued at the first follow-up visit, conducted 2-3 months after discharge from the program. Notably, pain intensity further decreased from a median of 5 at program completion to a median of 2 at the first follow-up, Ms. Campanile said. Improvements in allodynia also were sustained at the first follow-up.
Quality of life measures related to physical, emotional, social, and cognitive function also improved significantly from baseline to completion of the program.
In addition, scores on a quality of life family impact survey improved significantly; in particular, parent health-related quality of life scores (Parent HRQoL) improved from 60 at baseline to 71 at the end of the program on a scale of 0 to 100. The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short duration and use of a convenience sample from a retrospective cohort, with data limited to electronic health records, Ms. Campanile said. The study also was not powered to examine differential treatments based on psychiatric conditions, and any psychiatric conditions were based on self-reports.
However, the results support the value of a nonpharmacologic interdisciplinary program as “a robust treatment for youth with chronic idiopathic pain, for both patients and the family unit,” she said.
“This study also supports the need for and benefit of additional counseling for patients and their caregivers prior to and during enrollment in a pain rehabilitation program,” she concluded.
Study supports effectiveness of drug-free pain management
“The management of pain in any age group can be challenging, especially with current concerns for opioid dependence and abuse,” Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.
“Chronic pain affects daily life for all populations, but for children, adolescents, and their families, it can have a long-lasting impact on growth and development, psychosocial and physical well-being,” Dr. Haut said. “Determining and testing nonpharmacologic alternative methods of pain control are extremely important.”
Given the debilitating effects of chronic pain, and the potential side effects and dependence that have been associated with use of pharmacologic modes of pain control, unique and creative solutions have begun to emerge and need further attention and study, she said.
However, “despite published research supporting the use of alternative and complementary approaches to pain control in children and adolescents, nonpharmacologic, collaborative, interprofessional approaches to pain control have not been widely shared in the literature,” she said.
“Barriers to this type of program include first and foremost a potential lack of financial and workforce-related resources,” Dr. Haut said. “Patient and family attendance at frequent health visits, daily or even every other day, may also hinder success, but opportunities for telehealth and family training to learn physical and occupational skills within this type of program may be beginning solutions.”
Additional research should be conducted at multiple children’s hospitals, with a larger number of children and adolescents at varying ages, with pain related to different diagnoses, and with the inclusion of collaborative methodology, said Dr. Haut. “The current study had some limitations, including the small sample size, predominantly female sex, and a short participation time frame utilizing retrospective review. Completing prospective research over a longer time frame can also yield generalizable results applicable to varied populations.”
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Campanile had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose, and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
FROM PAS 2023
Overcoming dental phobias
When I was medical student, world famous behaviorist Dr. Joseph Wolpe was my mentor and taught me a great deal about anxiety disorders and phobias in his clinic. I did some of the original research on agoraphobias in the mid-1970s and have used the experience to treat many patients with phobias over the last 40-plus years.
Some of these patients with phobias had marked functional impairments in their social functioning and their adaptive skills. One such example – dental phobia – is a fear of going to the dentist and is commonly found in the general population.
Susan A. Cohen, DMD, a dentist who has practiced for more than 20 years, has seen this fear on a daily basis in her patients, ranging from mild to extreme. She says that most dental patients are able to overcome their fear and panic, but she estimates that about 5% have extreme dental phobias that prevented a patient from visiting the dentist. This can lead to poor dental health, affect self esteem, and destroy relationships.
The causes of dental phobia are multifactorial and as follows:
- Fear of pain and needles.
- Past bad experiences with dental procedures.
- Past history of abuse.
- Fear of loss of control in the dental chair.
- History of other phobias or anxiety disorders.
Dr. Cohen also states that the anticipatory anxiety of going to the dentist can be just as fearful as being in the dental chair. And she further states this anticipatory anxiety causes a great deal of noncompliance in keeping dental appointments. Patients missed dental appointments that were very necessary for their overall health. Dr. Cohen noticed that triggers to this specific dental anxiety are:
- Thoughts of being in the dental office.
- Thoughts of lying in the dental chair.
- Thoughts of hearing sounds of drills or seeing dental instruments.
- The smells of the dental office.
- Dental overhead lights.
Symptoms of dental phobias include chills, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, indigestion, and trembling. Dr. Cohen also notes that people with dental phobias can cry before visits, have insomnia, and experience panic attacks. These symptoms can further cause avoidance of visits, and can trigger anxiety and fears that do not match the danger.
Avoidance of treatment often leads to poor dental health, periodontal disease, tooth loss, and decayed teeth, but also may contribute to heart problems, diabetes, and undetected carcinomas. Noncompliance with dental care affects general well being and self esteem, and may cause chronic pain, sleep problems, and embarrassment. It may also affect performance in work and school, and can cause social isolation.
Exposure therapy in vivo and in vitro with systematic desensitization and flooding can decrease significantly the fears, panic, and avoidance some dental patients experience. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can change the way patients see and respond to the situations that trigger symptoms.
Additionally, acupuncture can reduce the anxiety that patients feel about dental visits, and distraction techniques such as music and television can be very helpful during dental appointments. Guided imagery using deep breathing exercises with relaxation, visualization, and positive suggestion can create a sense of well-being and calmness. Hypnosis has also been shown to decrease the stress of being in a dental office. Nitrous oxide and oral or IV sedation may be a helpful last resort.
It is important for a person with dental phobias to be referred to a caring dentist who is sensitive to anxiety, and choose a dentist who will listen to and help the patient come up with signals, such as raising their hand, to temporarily stop a dental procedure. This technique will help the dental patient to avoid experiencing a total loss of control and help them feel less overwhelmed.
Dr. Cohen also says that it is helpful to visit the dentist at a less busy time of the day so there are fewer dental sounds and anxiety triggers in the office.
I have found that behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding in vivo and in vitro is extremely helpful in helping patients with extreme dental phobias overcome their fears and become more compliant with their dental treatments. Through the use of these techniques, dental phobias – and their emotional and physical sequelae – may be alleviated together.
Dr. Richard W. Cohen is a psychiatrist who has been in private practice for more than 40 years and is on the editorial advisory board for Clinical Psychiatry News. Dr. Susan A. Cohen has practiced dentistry for over 20 years. The Cohens, who are married, are based in Philadelphia.
When I was medical student, world famous behaviorist Dr. Joseph Wolpe was my mentor and taught me a great deal about anxiety disorders and phobias in his clinic. I did some of the original research on agoraphobias in the mid-1970s and have used the experience to treat many patients with phobias over the last 40-plus years.
Some of these patients with phobias had marked functional impairments in their social functioning and their adaptive skills. One such example – dental phobia – is a fear of going to the dentist and is commonly found in the general population.
Susan A. Cohen, DMD, a dentist who has practiced for more than 20 years, has seen this fear on a daily basis in her patients, ranging from mild to extreme. She says that most dental patients are able to overcome their fear and panic, but she estimates that about 5% have extreme dental phobias that prevented a patient from visiting the dentist. This can lead to poor dental health, affect self esteem, and destroy relationships.
The causes of dental phobia are multifactorial and as follows:
- Fear of pain and needles.
- Past bad experiences with dental procedures.
- Past history of abuse.
- Fear of loss of control in the dental chair.
- History of other phobias or anxiety disorders.
Dr. Cohen also states that the anticipatory anxiety of going to the dentist can be just as fearful as being in the dental chair. And she further states this anticipatory anxiety causes a great deal of noncompliance in keeping dental appointments. Patients missed dental appointments that were very necessary for their overall health. Dr. Cohen noticed that triggers to this specific dental anxiety are:
- Thoughts of being in the dental office.
- Thoughts of lying in the dental chair.
- Thoughts of hearing sounds of drills or seeing dental instruments.
- The smells of the dental office.
- Dental overhead lights.
Symptoms of dental phobias include chills, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, indigestion, and trembling. Dr. Cohen also notes that people with dental phobias can cry before visits, have insomnia, and experience panic attacks. These symptoms can further cause avoidance of visits, and can trigger anxiety and fears that do not match the danger.
Avoidance of treatment often leads to poor dental health, periodontal disease, tooth loss, and decayed teeth, but also may contribute to heart problems, diabetes, and undetected carcinomas. Noncompliance with dental care affects general well being and self esteem, and may cause chronic pain, sleep problems, and embarrassment. It may also affect performance in work and school, and can cause social isolation.
Exposure therapy in vivo and in vitro with systematic desensitization and flooding can decrease significantly the fears, panic, and avoidance some dental patients experience. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can change the way patients see and respond to the situations that trigger symptoms.
Additionally, acupuncture can reduce the anxiety that patients feel about dental visits, and distraction techniques such as music and television can be very helpful during dental appointments. Guided imagery using deep breathing exercises with relaxation, visualization, and positive suggestion can create a sense of well-being and calmness. Hypnosis has also been shown to decrease the stress of being in a dental office. Nitrous oxide and oral or IV sedation may be a helpful last resort.
It is important for a person with dental phobias to be referred to a caring dentist who is sensitive to anxiety, and choose a dentist who will listen to and help the patient come up with signals, such as raising their hand, to temporarily stop a dental procedure. This technique will help the dental patient to avoid experiencing a total loss of control and help them feel less overwhelmed.
Dr. Cohen also says that it is helpful to visit the dentist at a less busy time of the day so there are fewer dental sounds and anxiety triggers in the office.
I have found that behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding in vivo and in vitro is extremely helpful in helping patients with extreme dental phobias overcome their fears and become more compliant with their dental treatments. Through the use of these techniques, dental phobias – and their emotional and physical sequelae – may be alleviated together.
Dr. Richard W. Cohen is a psychiatrist who has been in private practice for more than 40 years and is on the editorial advisory board for Clinical Psychiatry News. Dr. Susan A. Cohen has practiced dentistry for over 20 years. The Cohens, who are married, are based in Philadelphia.
When I was medical student, world famous behaviorist Dr. Joseph Wolpe was my mentor and taught me a great deal about anxiety disorders and phobias in his clinic. I did some of the original research on agoraphobias in the mid-1970s and have used the experience to treat many patients with phobias over the last 40-plus years.
Some of these patients with phobias had marked functional impairments in their social functioning and their adaptive skills. One such example – dental phobia – is a fear of going to the dentist and is commonly found in the general population.
Susan A. Cohen, DMD, a dentist who has practiced for more than 20 years, has seen this fear on a daily basis in her patients, ranging from mild to extreme. She says that most dental patients are able to overcome their fear and panic, but she estimates that about 5% have extreme dental phobias that prevented a patient from visiting the dentist. This can lead to poor dental health, affect self esteem, and destroy relationships.
The causes of dental phobia are multifactorial and as follows:
- Fear of pain and needles.
- Past bad experiences with dental procedures.
- Past history of abuse.
- Fear of loss of control in the dental chair.
- History of other phobias or anxiety disorders.
Dr. Cohen also states that the anticipatory anxiety of going to the dentist can be just as fearful as being in the dental chair. And she further states this anticipatory anxiety causes a great deal of noncompliance in keeping dental appointments. Patients missed dental appointments that were very necessary for their overall health. Dr. Cohen noticed that triggers to this specific dental anxiety are:
- Thoughts of being in the dental office.
- Thoughts of lying in the dental chair.
- Thoughts of hearing sounds of drills or seeing dental instruments.
- The smells of the dental office.
- Dental overhead lights.
Symptoms of dental phobias include chills, dizziness, hyperhidrosis, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, indigestion, and trembling. Dr. Cohen also notes that people with dental phobias can cry before visits, have insomnia, and experience panic attacks. These symptoms can further cause avoidance of visits, and can trigger anxiety and fears that do not match the danger.
Avoidance of treatment often leads to poor dental health, periodontal disease, tooth loss, and decayed teeth, but also may contribute to heart problems, diabetes, and undetected carcinomas. Noncompliance with dental care affects general well being and self esteem, and may cause chronic pain, sleep problems, and embarrassment. It may also affect performance in work and school, and can cause social isolation.
Exposure therapy in vivo and in vitro with systematic desensitization and flooding can decrease significantly the fears, panic, and avoidance some dental patients experience. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can change the way patients see and respond to the situations that trigger symptoms.
Additionally, acupuncture can reduce the anxiety that patients feel about dental visits, and distraction techniques such as music and television can be very helpful during dental appointments. Guided imagery using deep breathing exercises with relaxation, visualization, and positive suggestion can create a sense of well-being and calmness. Hypnosis has also been shown to decrease the stress of being in a dental office. Nitrous oxide and oral or IV sedation may be a helpful last resort.
It is important for a person with dental phobias to be referred to a caring dentist who is sensitive to anxiety, and choose a dentist who will listen to and help the patient come up with signals, such as raising their hand, to temporarily stop a dental procedure. This technique will help the dental patient to avoid experiencing a total loss of control and help them feel less overwhelmed.
Dr. Cohen also says that it is helpful to visit the dentist at a less busy time of the day so there are fewer dental sounds and anxiety triggers in the office.
I have found that behavior modification with systematic desensitization and flooding in vivo and in vitro is extremely helpful in helping patients with extreme dental phobias overcome their fears and become more compliant with their dental treatments. Through the use of these techniques, dental phobias – and their emotional and physical sequelae – may be alleviated together.
Dr. Richard W. Cohen is a psychiatrist who has been in private practice for more than 40 years and is on the editorial advisory board for Clinical Psychiatry News. Dr. Susan A. Cohen has practiced dentistry for over 20 years. The Cohens, who are married, are based in Philadelphia.