News

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

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.

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.

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the need to assess Asian American subgroups individually to get a more accurate picture of their risk for diabetes and heart disease.

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.

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the need to assess Asian American subgroups individually to get a more accurate picture of their risk for diabetes and heart disease.

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.

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the need to assess Asian American subgroups individually to get a more accurate picture of their risk for diabetes and heart disease.

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.

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, investigators estimate that roughly 15% of schizophrenia cases among young males may be preventable by avoiding cannabis use disorder (CUD).

“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, investigators estimate that roughly 15% of schizophrenia cases among young males may be preventable by avoiding cannabis use disorder (CUD).

“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, investigators estimate that roughly 15% of schizophrenia cases among young males may be preventable by avoiding cannabis use disorder (CUD).

“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.

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 meta-analysis of 36 trials) found also that helmet interface probably lowers mortality and risk of mechanical intervention, and reduces hospital and ICU stay.

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 meta-analysis of 36 trials) found also that helmet interface probably lowers mortality and risk of mechanical intervention, and reduces hospital and ICU stay.

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 meta-analysis of 36 trials) found also that helmet interface probably lowers mortality and risk of mechanical intervention, and reduces hospital and ICU stay.

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.

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?”

Dr. Jeffrey Dover

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, there are now two 1,726-nm laser devices – the AviClear and the Accure Laser System – cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild to severe acne, which have “very impressive results,” 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?”

Dr. Jeffrey Dover

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, there are now two 1,726-nm laser devices – the AviClear and the Accure Laser System – cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild to severe acne, which have “very impressive results,” 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?”

Dr. Jeffrey Dover

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, there are now two 1,726-nm laser devices – the AviClear and the Accure Laser System – cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild to severe acne, which have “very impressive results,” 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.





 

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.

A primary care physician at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Decatur, Georgia, has been indicted on several counts of sexual assault of veteran patients. Rajesh Motibhai Patel is accused of violating his patients’ constitutional right to bodily integrity while acting under color of law and of engaging in unwanted sexual contact.

According to US Attorney Ryan Buchanan, Patel allegedly “violated his oath to do no harm to patients under his care.” He allegedly sexually touched 4 female patients during routine examinations.

Patel’s alleged crimes were “horrific and unacceptable,” US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. “As soon as VA learned of these allegations, we removed this clinician from patient care and reassigned him to a role that had no patient interaction. Whenever a patient comes to VA, they deserve to know that they will be treated with care, compassion, and respect.”

The case is being investigated by the VA Office of Inspector General. Although Patel is only charged at present, not convicted, investigators believe he may have victimized other patients as well. Anyone with information is asked to call the VA-OIG tipline at (770) 758-6646.

A primary care physician at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Decatur, Georgia, has been indicted on several counts of sexual assault of veteran patients. Rajesh Motibhai Patel is accused of violating his patients’ constitutional right to bodily integrity while acting under color of law and of engaging in unwanted sexual contact.

According to US Attorney Ryan Buchanan, Patel allegedly “violated his oath to do no harm to patients under his care.” He allegedly sexually touched 4 female patients during routine examinations.

Patel’s alleged crimes were “horrific and unacceptable,” US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. “As soon as VA learned of these allegations, we removed this clinician from patient care and reassigned him to a role that had no patient interaction. Whenever a patient comes to VA, they deserve to know that they will be treated with care, compassion, and respect.”

The case is being investigated by the VA Office of Inspector General. Although Patel is only charged at present, not convicted, investigators believe he may have victimized other patients as well. Anyone with information is asked to call the VA-OIG tipline at (770) 758-6646.

A primary care physician at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Decatur, Georgia, has been indicted on several counts of sexual assault of veteran patients. Rajesh Motibhai Patel is accused of violating his patients’ constitutional right to bodily integrity while acting under color of law and of engaging in unwanted sexual contact.

According to US Attorney Ryan Buchanan, Patel allegedly “violated his oath to do no harm to patients under his care.” He allegedly sexually touched 4 female patients during routine examinations.

Patel’s alleged crimes were “horrific and unacceptable,” US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. “As soon as VA learned of these allegations, we removed this clinician from patient care and reassigned him to a role that had no patient interaction. Whenever a patient comes to VA, they deserve to know that they will be treated with care, compassion, and respect.”

The case is being investigated by the VA Office of Inspector General. Although Patel is only charged at present, not convicted, investigators believe he may have victimized other patients as well. Anyone with information is asked to call the VA-OIG tipline at (770) 758-6646.

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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