MDedge Internal Medicine

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

Nearly two thirds of patients with rheumatic conditions switched to medical cannabis from medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, with the substitution being associated with greater self-reported improvement in symptoms than nonsubstitution.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey to investigate the prevalence of switching to medical cannabis from traditional medications in patients with rheumatic conditions from the United States and Canada.
• The survey included questions on current and past medical cannabis use, sociodemographic characteristics, medication taken and substituted, substance use, and patient-reported outcomes.
• Of the 1727 patients who completed the survey, 763 patients (mean age, 59 years; 84.1% women) reported current use of cannabis and were included in this analysis.
• Participants were asked if they had substituted any medications with medical cannabis and were sub-grouped accordingly.
• They also reported any changes in symptoms after initiating cannabis, the current and anticipated duration of medical cannabis use, methods of ingestion, cannabinoid content, and frequency of use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 62.5% reported substituting medical cannabis for certain medications, including NSAIDs (54.7%), opioids (48.6%), sleep aids (29.6%), muscle relaxants (25.2%), benzodiazepines (15.5%), and gabapentinoids (10.5%).
• The most common reasons given for substituting medical cannabis were fewer side effects (39%), better symptom control (27%), and fewer adverse effects (12%).
• Participants who substituted medical cannabis reported significant improvements in symptoms such as pain, sleep, joint stiffness, muscle spasms, and inflammation, and in overall health, compared with those who did not substitute it for medications.
• The substitution group was more likely to use inhalation methods (smoking and vaporizing) than the nonsubstitution group; they also used medical cannabis more frequently and preferred products containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

IN PRACTICE:

“The changing legal status of cannabis has allowed a greater openness with more people willing to try cannabis for symptom relief. These encouraging results of medication reduction and favorable effect of [medical cannabis] require confirmation with more rigorous methods. At this time, survey information may be seen as a signal for effect, rather than sound evidence that could be applicable to those with musculoskeletal complaints in general,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The cross-sectional nature of the study limited the determination of causality between medical cannabis use and symptom improvement. Moreover, the anonymous and self-reported nature of the survey at a single timepoint may have introduced recall bias. The sample predominantly consisted of older, White females, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received grant support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some others received payments, honoraria, grant funding, consulting fees, and travel support, and reported other ties with pharmaceutical companies and other institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly two thirds of patients with rheumatic conditions switched to medical cannabis from medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, with the substitution being associated with greater self-reported improvement in symptoms than nonsubstitution.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey to investigate the prevalence of switching to medical cannabis from traditional medications in patients with rheumatic conditions from the United States and Canada.
• The survey included questions on current and past medical cannabis use, sociodemographic characteristics, medication taken and substituted, substance use, and patient-reported outcomes.
• Of the 1727 patients who completed the survey, 763 patients (mean age, 59 years; 84.1% women) reported current use of cannabis and were included in this analysis.
• Participants were asked if they had substituted any medications with medical cannabis and were sub-grouped accordingly.
• They also reported any changes in symptoms after initiating cannabis, the current and anticipated duration of medical cannabis use, methods of ingestion, cannabinoid content, and frequency of use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 62.5% reported substituting medical cannabis for certain medications, including NSAIDs (54.7%), opioids (48.6%), sleep aids (29.6%), muscle relaxants (25.2%), benzodiazepines (15.5%), and gabapentinoids (10.5%).
• The most common reasons given for substituting medical cannabis were fewer side effects (39%), better symptom control (27%), and fewer adverse effects (12%).
• Participants who substituted medical cannabis reported significant improvements in symptoms such as pain, sleep, joint stiffness, muscle spasms, and inflammation, and in overall health, compared with those who did not substitute it for medications.
• The substitution group was more likely to use inhalation methods (smoking and vaporizing) than the nonsubstitution group; they also used medical cannabis more frequently and preferred products containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

IN PRACTICE:

“The changing legal status of cannabis has allowed a greater openness with more people willing to try cannabis for symptom relief. These encouraging results of medication reduction and favorable effect of [medical cannabis] require confirmation with more rigorous methods. At this time, survey information may be seen as a signal for effect, rather than sound evidence that could be applicable to those with musculoskeletal complaints in general,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The cross-sectional nature of the study limited the determination of causality between medical cannabis use and symptom improvement. Moreover, the anonymous and self-reported nature of the survey at a single timepoint may have introduced recall bias. The sample predominantly consisted of older, White females, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received grant support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some others received payments, honoraria, grant funding, consulting fees, and travel support, and reported other ties with pharmaceutical companies and other institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly two thirds of patients with rheumatic conditions switched to medical cannabis from medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, with the substitution being associated with greater self-reported improvement in symptoms than nonsubstitution.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey to investigate the prevalence of switching to medical cannabis from traditional medications in patients with rheumatic conditions from the United States and Canada.
• The survey included questions on current and past medical cannabis use, sociodemographic characteristics, medication taken and substituted, substance use, and patient-reported outcomes.
• Of the 1727 patients who completed the survey, 763 patients (mean age, 59 years; 84.1% women) reported current use of cannabis and were included in this analysis.
• Participants were asked if they had substituted any medications with medical cannabis and were sub-grouped accordingly.
• They also reported any changes in symptoms after initiating cannabis, the current and anticipated duration of medical cannabis use, methods of ingestion, cannabinoid content, and frequency of use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 62.5% reported substituting medical cannabis for certain medications, including NSAIDs (54.7%), opioids (48.6%), sleep aids (29.6%), muscle relaxants (25.2%), benzodiazepines (15.5%), and gabapentinoids (10.5%).
• The most common reasons given for substituting medical cannabis were fewer side effects (39%), better symptom control (27%), and fewer adverse effects (12%).
• Participants who substituted medical cannabis reported significant improvements in symptoms such as pain, sleep, joint stiffness, muscle spasms, and inflammation, and in overall health, compared with those who did not substitute it for medications.
• The substitution group was more likely to use inhalation methods (smoking and vaporizing) than the nonsubstitution group; they also used medical cannabis more frequently and preferred products containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

IN PRACTICE:

“The changing legal status of cannabis has allowed a greater openness with more people willing to try cannabis for symptom relief. These encouraging results of medication reduction and favorable effect of [medical cannabis] require confirmation with more rigorous methods. At this time, survey information may be seen as a signal for effect, rather than sound evidence that could be applicable to those with musculoskeletal complaints in general,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and was published online in ACR Open Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The cross-sectional nature of the study limited the determination of causality between medical cannabis use and symptom improvement. Moreover, the anonymous and self-reported nature of the survey at a single timepoint may have introduced recall bias. The sample predominantly consisted of older, White females, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other demographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received grant support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some others received payments, honoraria, grant funding, consulting fees, and travel support, and reported other ties with pharmaceutical companies and other institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While primary care physicians are generally comfortable prescribing vaginal estrogen therapy for recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), other nonantibiotic prophylactic options remain significantly underutilized, according to new research that highlights a crucial gap in antibiotic stewardship practices among primary care physicians.

UTIs are the most common bacterial infection in women of all ages, and an estimated 30%-40% of women will experience reinfection within 6 months. Recurrent UTI is typically defined as two or more infections within 6 months or a greater number of infections within a year, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Antibiotics are the first line of defense in preventing and treating recurrent UTIs, but repeated and prolonged use could lead to antibiotic resistance.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina surveyed 40 primary care physicians at one academic medical center and found that 96% of primary care physicians prescribe vaginal estrogen therapy for recurrent UTI prevention, with 58% doing so “often.” Estrogen deficiency and urinary retention are strong contributors to infection.

However, 78% of physicians surveyed said they had never prescribed methenamine hippurate, and 85% said they had never prescribed D-mannose.

Physicians with specialized training in menopausal care felt more at ease prescribing vaginal estrogen therapy to patients with complex medical histories, such as those with a family history of breast cancer or endometrial cancer. This suggests that enhanced education could play a vital role in increasing comfort levels among general practitioners, said Lauren Tholemeier, MD, a urogynecology fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Primary care physicians are the front line of managing patients with recurrent UTI,” said Tholemeier.

“There’s an opportunity for further education on, and even awareness of, methenamine hippurate and D-mannose as an option that has data behind it and can be included as a tool” for patient care, she said.

Indeed, physicians who saw six or more recurrent patients with UTI each month were more likely to prescribe methenamine hippurate, the study found, suggesting that familiarity with recurrent UTI cases can lead to greater confidence in employing alternative prophylactic strategies.

Tholemeier presented her research at the American Urogynecologic Society’s PFD Week in Washington, DC.

Expanding physician knowledge and utilization of all available nonantibiotic therapies can help them better care for patients who don’t necessarily have access to a subspecialist, Tholemeier said.

According to the American Urogynecologic Society’s best practice guidelines, there is limited evidence supporting routine use of D-mannose to prevent recurrent UTI. Methenamine hippurate, however, may be effective for short-term UTI prevention, according to the group.

By broadening the use of vaginal estrogen therapy, methenamine hippurate, and D-mannose, primary care physicians can help reduce reliance on antibiotics for recurrent UTI prevention — a practice that may contribute to growing antibiotic resistance, said Tholemeier.

“The end goal isn’t going to be to say that we should never prescribe antibiotics for UTI infection,” said Tholemeier, adding that, in some cases, physicians can consider using these other medications in conjunction with antibiotics.

“But it’s knowing they [clinicians] have some other options in their toolbox,” she said.

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

While primary care physicians are generally comfortable prescribing vaginal estrogen therapy for recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), other nonantibiotic prophylactic options remain significantly underutilized, according to new research that highlights a crucial gap in antibiotic stewardship practices among primary care physicians.

UTIs are the most common bacterial infection in women of all ages, and an estimated 30%-40% of women will experience reinfection within 6 months. Recurrent UTI is typically defined as two or more infections within 6 months or a greater number of infections within a year, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Antibiotics are the first line of defense in preventing and treating recurrent UTIs, but repeated and prolonged use could lead to antibiotic resistance.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina surveyed 40 primary care physicians at one academic medical center and found that 96% of primary care physicians prescribe vaginal estrogen therapy for recurrent UTI prevention, with 58% doing so “often.” Estrogen deficiency and urinary retention are strong contributors to infection.

However, 78% of physicians surveyed said they had never prescribed methenamine hippurate, and 85% said they had never prescribed D-mannose.

Physicians with specialized training in menopausal care felt more at ease prescribing vaginal estrogen therapy to patients with complex medical histories, such as those with a family history of breast cancer or endometrial cancer. This suggests that enhanced education could play a vital role in increasing comfort levels among general practitioners, said Lauren Tholemeier, MD, a urogynecology fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Primary care physicians are the front line of managing patients with recurrent UTI,” said Tholemeier.

“There’s an opportunity for further education on, and even awareness of, methenamine hippurate and D-mannose as an option that has data behind it and can be included as a tool” for patient care, she said.

Indeed, physicians who saw six or more recurrent patients with UTI each month were more likely to prescribe methenamine hippurate, the study found, suggesting that familiarity with recurrent UTI cases can lead to greater confidence in employing alternative prophylactic strategies.

Tholemeier presented her research at the American Urogynecologic Society’s PFD Week in Washington, DC.

Expanding physician knowledge and utilization of all available nonantibiotic therapies can help them better care for patients who don’t necessarily have access to a subspecialist, Tholemeier said.

According to the American Urogynecologic Society’s best practice guidelines, there is limited evidence supporting routine use of D-mannose to prevent recurrent UTI. Methenamine hippurate, however, may be effective for short-term UTI prevention, according to the group.

By broadening the use of vaginal estrogen therapy, methenamine hippurate, and D-mannose, primary care physicians can help reduce reliance on antibiotics for recurrent UTI prevention — a practice that may contribute to growing antibiotic resistance, said Tholemeier.

“The end goal isn’t going to be to say that we should never prescribe antibiotics for UTI infection,” said Tholemeier, adding that, in some cases, physicians can consider using these other medications in conjunction with antibiotics.

“But it’s knowing they [clinicians] have some other options in their toolbox,” she said.

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

While primary care physicians are generally comfortable prescribing vaginal estrogen therapy for recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), other nonantibiotic prophylactic options remain significantly underutilized, according to new research that highlights a crucial gap in antibiotic stewardship practices among primary care physicians.

UTIs are the most common bacterial infection in women of all ages, and an estimated 30%-40% of women will experience reinfection within 6 months. Recurrent UTI is typically defined as two or more infections within 6 months or a greater number of infections within a year, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians.

Antibiotics are the first line of defense in preventing and treating recurrent UTIs, but repeated and prolonged use could lead to antibiotic resistance.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina surveyed 40 primary care physicians at one academic medical center and found that 96% of primary care physicians prescribe vaginal estrogen therapy for recurrent UTI prevention, with 58% doing so “often.” Estrogen deficiency and urinary retention are strong contributors to infection.

However, 78% of physicians surveyed said they had never prescribed methenamine hippurate, and 85% said they had never prescribed D-mannose.

Physicians with specialized training in menopausal care felt more at ease prescribing vaginal estrogen therapy to patients with complex medical histories, such as those with a family history of breast cancer or endometrial cancer. This suggests that enhanced education could play a vital role in increasing comfort levels among general practitioners, said Lauren Tholemeier, MD, a urogynecology fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Primary care physicians are the front line of managing patients with recurrent UTI,” said Tholemeier.

“There’s an opportunity for further education on, and even awareness of, methenamine hippurate and D-mannose as an option that has data behind it and can be included as a tool” for patient care, she said.

Indeed, physicians who saw six or more recurrent patients with UTI each month were more likely to prescribe methenamine hippurate, the study found, suggesting that familiarity with recurrent UTI cases can lead to greater confidence in employing alternative prophylactic strategies.

Tholemeier presented her research at the American Urogynecologic Society’s PFD Week in Washington, DC.

Expanding physician knowledge and utilization of all available nonantibiotic therapies can help them better care for patients who don’t necessarily have access to a subspecialist, Tholemeier said.

According to the American Urogynecologic Society’s best practice guidelines, there is limited evidence supporting routine use of D-mannose to prevent recurrent UTI. Methenamine hippurate, however, may be effective for short-term UTI prevention, according to the group.

By broadening the use of vaginal estrogen therapy, methenamine hippurate, and D-mannose, primary care physicians can help reduce reliance on antibiotics for recurrent UTI prevention — a practice that may contribute to growing antibiotic resistance, said Tholemeier.

“The end goal isn’t going to be to say that we should never prescribe antibiotics for UTI infection,” said Tholemeier, adding that, in some cases, physicians can consider using these other medications in conjunction with antibiotics.

“But it’s knowing they [clinicians] have some other options in their toolbox,” she said.

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

As people turn their clocks back an hour on November 3 to mark the end of daylight saving time and return to standard time, they should remain aware of their sleep health and of potential risks associated with shifts in sleep patterns, according to a University of Calgary psychology professor who researches circadian cycles.

Notably, previous studies have shown that the twice-yearly time change is associated with increases in car accidents and workplace injuries, as well as heart attacks and strokes, owing to disrupted sleep, said Michael Antle, PhD, head of the psychology department and member of the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

In an interview, Antle explained the science behind the health risks associated with time changes, offered tips to prepare for the shift, and discussed scientists’ suggestion to move to year-round standard time. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Why is it important to pay attention to circadian rhythms?

Circadian rhythms are patterns of physiologic and behavioral changes that affect everything inside the body and everything we do, including when hormones are secreted, digestive juices are ready to digest, and growth hormones are released at night. The body is a carefully coordinated orchestra, and everything has to happen at the right time.

When we start messing with those rhythms, that’s when states of disease start coming on and we don’t feel well. You’ve probably experienced it — when you try to stay up late, eat at the wrong times, or have jet lag. Flying across one or two time zones is usually tolerable, but if you fly across the world, it can be profound and make you feel bad, even up to a week. Similar shifts happen with the time changes.

How do the time changes affect health risks?

The wintertime change is generally more tolerable, and you’ll hear people talk about “gaining an hour” of sleep. It’s better than that, because we’re realigning our social clocks — such as our work schedules and school schedules — with daylight. We tend to go to bed relative to the sun but wake up based on when our boss says to be at our desk, so an earlier sunset helps us to fall asleep earlier and is healthier for our body.

In the spring, the opposite happens, and the time change affects us much more than just one bad night of sleep. For some people, it can feel like losing an hour of sleep every day for weeks, and that abrupt change can lead to car accidents, workplace injuries, heart attacks, and strokes. Our body experiences extra strain when we’re not awake and ready for the day.

What does your research show?

Most of my work focuses on preclinical models to understand what’s going on in the brain and body. Because we can’t study this ethically in humans, we learn a lot from animal models, especially mice. In a recent study looking at mild circadian disruption — where we raised mice on days that were about 75 minutes shorter — we saw they started developing diabetes, heart disease, and insulin resistance within in a few months, or about the time they were a young adult.

Oftentimes, people think about their sleep rhythm as an arbitrary choice, but in fact, it does affect your health. We know that if your human circadian clock runs slow, morning light can help fix that and reset it, whereas evening light moves us in the other direction and makes it harder to get up in the morning. 

Some people want to switch to one year-round time. What do you advocate? 

In most cases, the standard time (or winter time) is the more natural time that fits better with our body cycle. If we follow a time where we get up before sunrise or have a later sunset, then it’s linked to more social jet lag, where people are less attentive at work, don’t learn as well at school, and have more accidents.

Instead of picking what sounds good or chasing the name — such as “daylight saving time” — we need to think about the right time for us and our circadian clock. Some places, such as Maine in the United States, would actually fit better with the Atlantic time zone or the Maritime provinces in Canada, whereas some parts of Alberta are geographically west of Los Angeles based on longitude and would fit better with the Pacific time zone. Sticking with a year-round daylight saving time in some cities in Alberta would mean people wouldn’t see the sun until 10:30 AM in the winter, which is really late and could affect activities such as skiing and hockey.

The Canadian Society for Chronobiology advocates for year-round standard time to align our social clocks with our biological clocks. Sleep and circadian rhythm experts in the US and globally have issued similar position statements.

What tips do you suggest to help people adjust their circadian clocks in November?

For people who know their bodies and that it will affect them more, give yourself extra time. If your schedule permits, plan ahead and change your clocks sooner, especially if you’re able to do so over the weekend. Don’t rush around while tired — rushing when you’re not ready leads to those increased accidents on the road or on the job. Know that the sun will still be mismatched for a bit and your body clock will take time to adjust, so you might feel out of sorts for a few days.

Antle reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As people turn their clocks back an hour on November 3 to mark the end of daylight saving time and return to standard time, they should remain aware of their sleep health and of potential risks associated with shifts in sleep patterns, according to a University of Calgary psychology professor who researches circadian cycles.

Notably, previous studies have shown that the twice-yearly time change is associated with increases in car accidents and workplace injuries, as well as heart attacks and strokes, owing to disrupted sleep, said Michael Antle, PhD, head of the psychology department and member of the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

In an interview, Antle explained the science behind the health risks associated with time changes, offered tips to prepare for the shift, and discussed scientists’ suggestion to move to year-round standard time. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Why is it important to pay attention to circadian rhythms?

Circadian rhythms are patterns of physiologic and behavioral changes that affect everything inside the body and everything we do, including when hormones are secreted, digestive juices are ready to digest, and growth hormones are released at night. The body is a carefully coordinated orchestra, and everything has to happen at the right time.

When we start messing with those rhythms, that’s when states of disease start coming on and we don’t feel well. You’ve probably experienced it — when you try to stay up late, eat at the wrong times, or have jet lag. Flying across one or two time zones is usually tolerable, but if you fly across the world, it can be profound and make you feel bad, even up to a week. Similar shifts happen with the time changes.

How do the time changes affect health risks?

The wintertime change is generally more tolerable, and you’ll hear people talk about “gaining an hour” of sleep. It’s better than that, because we’re realigning our social clocks — such as our work schedules and school schedules — with daylight. We tend to go to bed relative to the sun but wake up based on when our boss says to be at our desk, so an earlier sunset helps us to fall asleep earlier and is healthier for our body.

In the spring, the opposite happens, and the time change affects us much more than just one bad night of sleep. For some people, it can feel like losing an hour of sleep every day for weeks, and that abrupt change can lead to car accidents, workplace injuries, heart attacks, and strokes. Our body experiences extra strain when we’re not awake and ready for the day.

What does your research show?

Most of my work focuses on preclinical models to understand what’s going on in the brain and body. Because we can’t study this ethically in humans, we learn a lot from animal models, especially mice. In a recent study looking at mild circadian disruption — where we raised mice on days that were about 75 minutes shorter — we saw they started developing diabetes, heart disease, and insulin resistance within in a few months, or about the time they were a young adult.

Oftentimes, people think about their sleep rhythm as an arbitrary choice, but in fact, it does affect your health. We know that if your human circadian clock runs slow, morning light can help fix that and reset it, whereas evening light moves us in the other direction and makes it harder to get up in the morning. 

Some people want to switch to one year-round time. What do you advocate? 

In most cases, the standard time (or winter time) is the more natural time that fits better with our body cycle. If we follow a time where we get up before sunrise or have a later sunset, then it’s linked to more social jet lag, where people are less attentive at work, don’t learn as well at school, and have more accidents.

Instead of picking what sounds good or chasing the name — such as “daylight saving time” — we need to think about the right time for us and our circadian clock. Some places, such as Maine in the United States, would actually fit better with the Atlantic time zone or the Maritime provinces in Canada, whereas some parts of Alberta are geographically west of Los Angeles based on longitude and would fit better with the Pacific time zone. Sticking with a year-round daylight saving time in some cities in Alberta would mean people wouldn’t see the sun until 10:30 AM in the winter, which is really late and could affect activities such as skiing and hockey.

The Canadian Society for Chronobiology advocates for year-round standard time to align our social clocks with our biological clocks. Sleep and circadian rhythm experts in the US and globally have issued similar position statements.

What tips do you suggest to help people adjust their circadian clocks in November?

For people who know their bodies and that it will affect them more, give yourself extra time. If your schedule permits, plan ahead and change your clocks sooner, especially if you’re able to do so over the weekend. Don’t rush around while tired — rushing when you’re not ready leads to those increased accidents on the road or on the job. Know that the sun will still be mismatched for a bit and your body clock will take time to adjust, so you might feel out of sorts for a few days.

Antle reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As people turn their clocks back an hour on November 3 to mark the end of daylight saving time and return to standard time, they should remain aware of their sleep health and of potential risks associated with shifts in sleep patterns, according to a University of Calgary psychology professor who researches circadian cycles.

Notably, previous studies have shown that the twice-yearly time change is associated with increases in car accidents and workplace injuries, as well as heart attacks and strokes, owing to disrupted sleep, said Michael Antle, PhD, head of the psychology department and member of the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

In an interview, Antle explained the science behind the health risks associated with time changes, offered tips to prepare for the shift, and discussed scientists’ suggestion to move to year-round standard time. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Why is it important to pay attention to circadian rhythms?

Circadian rhythms are patterns of physiologic and behavioral changes that affect everything inside the body and everything we do, including when hormones are secreted, digestive juices are ready to digest, and growth hormones are released at night. The body is a carefully coordinated orchestra, and everything has to happen at the right time.

When we start messing with those rhythms, that’s when states of disease start coming on and we don’t feel well. You’ve probably experienced it — when you try to stay up late, eat at the wrong times, or have jet lag. Flying across one or two time zones is usually tolerable, but if you fly across the world, it can be profound and make you feel bad, even up to a week. Similar shifts happen with the time changes.

How do the time changes affect health risks?

The wintertime change is generally more tolerable, and you’ll hear people talk about “gaining an hour” of sleep. It’s better than that, because we’re realigning our social clocks — such as our work schedules and school schedules — with daylight. We tend to go to bed relative to the sun but wake up based on when our boss says to be at our desk, so an earlier sunset helps us to fall asleep earlier and is healthier for our body.

In the spring, the opposite happens, and the time change affects us much more than just one bad night of sleep. For some people, it can feel like losing an hour of sleep every day for weeks, and that abrupt change can lead to car accidents, workplace injuries, heart attacks, and strokes. Our body experiences extra strain when we’re not awake and ready for the day.

What does your research show?

Most of my work focuses on preclinical models to understand what’s going on in the brain and body. Because we can’t study this ethically in humans, we learn a lot from animal models, especially mice. In a recent study looking at mild circadian disruption — where we raised mice on days that were about 75 minutes shorter — we saw they started developing diabetes, heart disease, and insulin resistance within in a few months, or about the time they were a young adult.

Oftentimes, people think about their sleep rhythm as an arbitrary choice, but in fact, it does affect your health. We know that if your human circadian clock runs slow, morning light can help fix that and reset it, whereas evening light moves us in the other direction and makes it harder to get up in the morning. 

Some people want to switch to one year-round time. What do you advocate? 

In most cases, the standard time (or winter time) is the more natural time that fits better with our body cycle. If we follow a time where we get up before sunrise or have a later sunset, then it’s linked to more social jet lag, where people are less attentive at work, don’t learn as well at school, and have more accidents.

Instead of picking what sounds good or chasing the name — such as “daylight saving time” — we need to think about the right time for us and our circadian clock. Some places, such as Maine in the United States, would actually fit better with the Atlantic time zone or the Maritime provinces in Canada, whereas some parts of Alberta are geographically west of Los Angeles based on longitude and would fit better with the Pacific time zone. Sticking with a year-round daylight saving time in some cities in Alberta would mean people wouldn’t see the sun until 10:30 AM in the winter, which is really late and could affect activities such as skiing and hockey.

The Canadian Society for Chronobiology advocates for year-round standard time to align our social clocks with our biological clocks. Sleep and circadian rhythm experts in the US and globally have issued similar position statements.

What tips do you suggest to help people adjust their circadian clocks in November?

For people who know their bodies and that it will affect them more, give yourself extra time. If your schedule permits, plan ahead and change your clocks sooner, especially if you’re able to do so over the weekend. Don’t rush around while tired — rushing when you’re not ready leads to those increased accidents on the road or on the job. Know that the sun will still be mismatched for a bit and your body clock will take time to adjust, so you might feel out of sorts for a few days.

Antle reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The viral burden of SARS-CoV-2 on floors, even in healthcare worker–only areas, was strongly associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in two acute-care hospitals, according to a new study from Ontario, Canada.

With every 10-fold increase in viral copies, the chance of an impending outbreak of COVID-19 rose 22-fold. The results suggest that frequent floor sampling could play an important role in a more localized surveillance of the virus, the authors wrote.

“These data add to the mounting evidence that built environment detection for SARS-CoV-2 may provide an additional layer of monitoring and could help inform local infection prevention and control measures,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 
 

Preventing Future Suffering 

The current study builds on the researchers’ previous work, which found the same correlation between viral load on floors and COVID outbreaks in long-term care homes. 

Currently, the best-known method of environmental surveillance for COVID is wastewater detection. “Swabbing the floors would be another approach to surveillance,” senior author Caroline Nott, MD, infectious disease physician at the Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview. 

“We do have environmental surveillance with wastewater, but while this may tell you what’s going on in the city, it doesn’t tell you what is going on in a particular ward of a hospital, for instance,” she added. 

Nott and her colleagues believe that swabbing, which is easy and relatively inexpensive, will become another tool to examine the built environment. “Instead of having to close a whole hospital, for example, we could just close one room instead of an entire ward if swabbing showed a high concentration of COVID,” Nott said. 

The current study was conducted at two hospitals in Ontario between July 2022 and March 2023. The floors of healthcare worker–only areas on four inpatient adult wards were swabbed. These areas included changing rooms, meeting rooms, staff washrooms, nursing stations, and interdisciplinary team rooms.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on 537 of 760 floor swabs (71%). The overall positivity rate in the first hospital was 90% (n = 280). In the second hospital, the rate was 60% (n = 480).

Four COVID-19 outbreaks occurred in the first acute care hospital, and seven outbreaks occurred at the second hospital. Outbreaks occurred mostly among hospitalized patients (140 cases), but also in four hospital workers.

COVID-19 still requires vigilance, said Nott. “We weren’t prepared for COVID, and so as a result, many people died or have suffered long-term effects, especially vulnerable people like those being treated in hospital or in long-term care facilities. We want to develop methods to prevent similar suffering in the future, whether it’s a new COVID variant or a different pathogen altogether.” 
 

Changing Surveillance Practice?

“This is a good study,” Steven Rogak, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada, said in an interivew. “The fundamental idea is that respiratory droplets and aerosols will deposit on the floor, and polymerase chain reaction [PCR] tests of swabs will provide a surrogate measurement of what might have been inhaled. There are solid statistics that it worked for the hospitals studied,” said Rogak, who studies aerosols at UBC’s Energy and Aerosols Laboratory. Rogak did not participate in the study. 

“The authors note several limitations, including that increased healthcare worker testing may have been triggered by the higher values of PCR counts from the floor swabs. But this doesn’t seem to be a problem to me, because if the floor swabs motivate the hospital to test workers more, and that results in identifying outbreaks sooner, then great,” he said.

“Another limitation is that if the hospital has better HVAC or uses air purifiers, it could remove the most infectious aerosols, but the large droplets that fall quickly to the ground would remain, and this would still result in high PCR counts from floor swabs. In this case, perhaps the floor swabs would be a poorer indication of impending outbreaks,” said Rogak.

Determining the best timing and location for floor swabbing might be challenging and specific to the particular hospital, he added. ”For example, you would not want to take swabs from floors right after they are cleaned. Overall, I think this method deserves further development, and it could become a standard technique, but the details might require refinement for widespread application.”

Adrian Popp, MD, chair of the Infectious Disease Service at Huntington Hospital–Northwell Health in New York, said that, although interesting, the study would not change his current practice.

“I’m going to start testing the environment in different rooms in the hospital, and yes, I might find different amounts of COVID, but what does that mean? If pieces of RNA from COVID are on the floor, the likelihood is that they’re not infectious,” Popp said in an interview.

“Hospital workers do get sick with COVID, and sometimes they are asymptomatic and come to work. Patients may come into the hospital for another reason and be sick with COVID. There are many ways people who work in the hospital, as well as the patients, can get COVID. To me, it means that in that hospital and community there is a lot of COVID, but I can’t tell if there is causation here. Who is giving COVID to whom? What am I supposed to do with the information?” 

The study was supported by the Northern Ontario Academic Medicine Association Clinical Innovation Opportunities Fund, the Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization Innovation Fund, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating Grant. One author was a consultant for ProofDx, a startup company creating a point-of-care diagnostic test for COVID-19, and is an advisor for SIGNAL1, a startup company deploying machine-learning models to improve inpatient care. Nott, Rogak, and Popp reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The viral burden of SARS-CoV-2 on floors, even in healthcare worker–only areas, was strongly associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in two acute-care hospitals, according to a new study from Ontario, Canada.

With every 10-fold increase in viral copies, the chance of an impending outbreak of COVID-19 rose 22-fold. The results suggest that frequent floor sampling could play an important role in a more localized surveillance of the virus, the authors wrote.

“These data add to the mounting evidence that built environment detection for SARS-CoV-2 may provide an additional layer of monitoring and could help inform local infection prevention and control measures,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 
 

Preventing Future Suffering 

The current study builds on the researchers’ previous work, which found the same correlation between viral load on floors and COVID outbreaks in long-term care homes. 

Currently, the best-known method of environmental surveillance for COVID is wastewater detection. “Swabbing the floors would be another approach to surveillance,” senior author Caroline Nott, MD, infectious disease physician at the Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview. 

“We do have environmental surveillance with wastewater, but while this may tell you what’s going on in the city, it doesn’t tell you what is going on in a particular ward of a hospital, for instance,” she added. 

Nott and her colleagues believe that swabbing, which is easy and relatively inexpensive, will become another tool to examine the built environment. “Instead of having to close a whole hospital, for example, we could just close one room instead of an entire ward if swabbing showed a high concentration of COVID,” Nott said. 

The current study was conducted at two hospitals in Ontario between July 2022 and March 2023. The floors of healthcare worker–only areas on four inpatient adult wards were swabbed. These areas included changing rooms, meeting rooms, staff washrooms, nursing stations, and interdisciplinary team rooms.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on 537 of 760 floor swabs (71%). The overall positivity rate in the first hospital was 90% (n = 280). In the second hospital, the rate was 60% (n = 480).

Four COVID-19 outbreaks occurred in the first acute care hospital, and seven outbreaks occurred at the second hospital. Outbreaks occurred mostly among hospitalized patients (140 cases), but also in four hospital workers.

COVID-19 still requires vigilance, said Nott. “We weren’t prepared for COVID, and so as a result, many people died or have suffered long-term effects, especially vulnerable people like those being treated in hospital or in long-term care facilities. We want to develop methods to prevent similar suffering in the future, whether it’s a new COVID variant or a different pathogen altogether.” 
 

Changing Surveillance Practice?

“This is a good study,” Steven Rogak, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada, said in an interivew. “The fundamental idea is that respiratory droplets and aerosols will deposit on the floor, and polymerase chain reaction [PCR] tests of swabs will provide a surrogate measurement of what might have been inhaled. There are solid statistics that it worked for the hospitals studied,” said Rogak, who studies aerosols at UBC’s Energy and Aerosols Laboratory. Rogak did not participate in the study. 

“The authors note several limitations, including that increased healthcare worker testing may have been triggered by the higher values of PCR counts from the floor swabs. But this doesn’t seem to be a problem to me, because if the floor swabs motivate the hospital to test workers more, and that results in identifying outbreaks sooner, then great,” he said.

“Another limitation is that if the hospital has better HVAC or uses air purifiers, it could remove the most infectious aerosols, but the large droplets that fall quickly to the ground would remain, and this would still result in high PCR counts from floor swabs. In this case, perhaps the floor swabs would be a poorer indication of impending outbreaks,” said Rogak.

Determining the best timing and location for floor swabbing might be challenging and specific to the particular hospital, he added. ”For example, you would not want to take swabs from floors right after they are cleaned. Overall, I think this method deserves further development, and it could become a standard technique, but the details might require refinement for widespread application.”

Adrian Popp, MD, chair of the Infectious Disease Service at Huntington Hospital–Northwell Health in New York, said that, although interesting, the study would not change his current practice.

“I’m going to start testing the environment in different rooms in the hospital, and yes, I might find different amounts of COVID, but what does that mean? If pieces of RNA from COVID are on the floor, the likelihood is that they’re not infectious,” Popp said in an interview.

“Hospital workers do get sick with COVID, and sometimes they are asymptomatic and come to work. Patients may come into the hospital for another reason and be sick with COVID. There are many ways people who work in the hospital, as well as the patients, can get COVID. To me, it means that in that hospital and community there is a lot of COVID, but I can’t tell if there is causation here. Who is giving COVID to whom? What am I supposed to do with the information?” 

The study was supported by the Northern Ontario Academic Medicine Association Clinical Innovation Opportunities Fund, the Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization Innovation Fund, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating Grant. One author was a consultant for ProofDx, a startup company creating a point-of-care diagnostic test for COVID-19, and is an advisor for SIGNAL1, a startup company deploying machine-learning models to improve inpatient care. Nott, Rogak, and Popp reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The viral burden of SARS-CoV-2 on floors, even in healthcare worker–only areas, was strongly associated with COVID-19 outbreaks in two acute-care hospitals, according to a new study from Ontario, Canada.

With every 10-fold increase in viral copies, the chance of an impending outbreak of COVID-19 rose 22-fold. The results suggest that frequent floor sampling could play an important role in a more localized surveillance of the virus, the authors wrote.

“These data add to the mounting evidence that built environment detection for SARS-CoV-2 may provide an additional layer of monitoring and could help inform local infection prevention and control measures,” they wrote.

The study was published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 
 

Preventing Future Suffering 

The current study builds on the researchers’ previous work, which found the same correlation between viral load on floors and COVID outbreaks in long-term care homes. 

Currently, the best-known method of environmental surveillance for COVID is wastewater detection. “Swabbing the floors would be another approach to surveillance,” senior author Caroline Nott, MD, infectious disease physician at the Ottawa Hospital, said in an interview. 

“We do have environmental surveillance with wastewater, but while this may tell you what’s going on in the city, it doesn’t tell you what is going on in a particular ward of a hospital, for instance,” she added. 

Nott and her colleagues believe that swabbing, which is easy and relatively inexpensive, will become another tool to examine the built environment. “Instead of having to close a whole hospital, for example, we could just close one room instead of an entire ward if swabbing showed a high concentration of COVID,” Nott said. 

The current study was conducted at two hospitals in Ontario between July 2022 and March 2023. The floors of healthcare worker–only areas on four inpatient adult wards were swabbed. These areas included changing rooms, meeting rooms, staff washrooms, nursing stations, and interdisciplinary team rooms.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected on 537 of 760 floor swabs (71%). The overall positivity rate in the first hospital was 90% (n = 280). In the second hospital, the rate was 60% (n = 480).

Four COVID-19 outbreaks occurred in the first acute care hospital, and seven outbreaks occurred at the second hospital. Outbreaks occurred mostly among hospitalized patients (140 cases), but also in four hospital workers.

COVID-19 still requires vigilance, said Nott. “We weren’t prepared for COVID, and so as a result, many people died or have suffered long-term effects, especially vulnerable people like those being treated in hospital or in long-term care facilities. We want to develop methods to prevent similar suffering in the future, whether it’s a new COVID variant or a different pathogen altogether.” 
 

Changing Surveillance Practice?

“This is a good study,” Steven Rogak, PhD, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada, said in an interivew. “The fundamental idea is that respiratory droplets and aerosols will deposit on the floor, and polymerase chain reaction [PCR] tests of swabs will provide a surrogate measurement of what might have been inhaled. There are solid statistics that it worked for the hospitals studied,” said Rogak, who studies aerosols at UBC’s Energy and Aerosols Laboratory. Rogak did not participate in the study. 

“The authors note several limitations, including that increased healthcare worker testing may have been triggered by the higher values of PCR counts from the floor swabs. But this doesn’t seem to be a problem to me, because if the floor swabs motivate the hospital to test workers more, and that results in identifying outbreaks sooner, then great,” he said.

“Another limitation is that if the hospital has better HVAC or uses air purifiers, it could remove the most infectious aerosols, but the large droplets that fall quickly to the ground would remain, and this would still result in high PCR counts from floor swabs. In this case, perhaps the floor swabs would be a poorer indication of impending outbreaks,” said Rogak.

Determining the best timing and location for floor swabbing might be challenging and specific to the particular hospital, he added. ”For example, you would not want to take swabs from floors right after they are cleaned. Overall, I think this method deserves further development, and it could become a standard technique, but the details might require refinement for widespread application.”

Adrian Popp, MD, chair of the Infectious Disease Service at Huntington Hospital–Northwell Health in New York, said that, although interesting, the study would not change his current practice.

“I’m going to start testing the environment in different rooms in the hospital, and yes, I might find different amounts of COVID, but what does that mean? If pieces of RNA from COVID are on the floor, the likelihood is that they’re not infectious,” Popp said in an interview.

“Hospital workers do get sick with COVID, and sometimes they are asymptomatic and come to work. Patients may come into the hospital for another reason and be sick with COVID. There are many ways people who work in the hospital, as well as the patients, can get COVID. To me, it means that in that hospital and community there is a lot of COVID, but I can’t tell if there is causation here. Who is giving COVID to whom? What am I supposed to do with the information?” 

The study was supported by the Northern Ontario Academic Medicine Association Clinical Innovation Opportunities Fund, the Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization Innovation Fund, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating Grant. One author was a consultant for ProofDx, a startup company creating a point-of-care diagnostic test for COVID-19, and is an advisor for SIGNAL1, a startup company deploying machine-learning models to improve inpatient care. Nott, Rogak, and Popp reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.

The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.

In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.

High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
 

Pharmacists Most Effective

Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.

In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.

Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.

Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
 

Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk

The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.

“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.

“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.

Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”

Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
 

Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful

In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.

The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.

“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”

Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
 

Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’

Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”

He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.

Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”

Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”

Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.

“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”

Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
 

Collaboration Yes, Independent No

Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”

The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”

DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.

As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
 

Community Health Workers Key

He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.

“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.

Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”

Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.

And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”

Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.

“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”

Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.

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

Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.

The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.

In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.

High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
 

Pharmacists Most Effective

Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.

In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.

Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.

Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
 

Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk

The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.

“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.

“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.

Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”

Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
 

Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful

In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.

The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.

“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”

Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
 

Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’

Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”

He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.

Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”

Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”

Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.

“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”

Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
 

Collaboration Yes, Independent No

Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”

The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”

DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.

As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
 

Community Health Workers Key

He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.

“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.

Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”

Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.

And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”

Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.

“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”

Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.

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

Current efforts to control high blood pressure (BP) are failing in the United States and globally.

The first World Health Organization (WHO) global report on hypertension found that only 54% of adults with hypertension are diagnosed, 42% get treatment, and just 21% have their hypertension controlled.

In the United States, almost half (48%) of adults have high BP, defined as a systolic BP > 130 mm Hg, or a diastolic BP > 80 mm Hg, or are taking medication for high BP, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only about one in four adults (22.5%) with high BP have their BP under control.

High BP is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, and the problem of controlling it is only getting worse. In 2024, the American Heart Association estimates that, “among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050.”
 

Pharmacists Most Effective

Though many factors contribute to hypertension, researchers have found that the kind of specialist leading the hypertension team may play a role in success. Currently, most BP control teams are led by physicians in primary care.

In a recent meta-analysis involving 100 randomized controlled trials and more than 90,000 patients in Circulation, Katherine T. Mills, PhD, School of Public Health, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and colleagues found that, while all the groups studied who led BP control efforts were successful in reducing BP, pharmacist- and community health worker–led teams saw the biggest reductions.

Those groups’ efforts resulted in the greatest systolic BP drops: −7.3 mm Hg (pharmacists) and −7.1 mm Hg (community health workers). Groups led by nurses and physicians saw systolic changes of −3 and −2.4 mm Hg, respectively.

Similarly, pharmacist- and community health worker–led efforts saw the greatest diastolic BP reductions (−3.8 and −3.1 mm Hg), compared with nurse-led (−1.6) and physician-led (−1.2) efforts.
 

Reductions Enough to Cut Cardiovascular Disease Risk

The reduction numbers for pharmacists are clinically meaningful, Mills said in an interview. “It’s greater than a lot of what we see from individual lifestyle changes,” such as reducing sodium intake or increasing physical activity.

“It’s a big enough blood pressure change to have meaningful reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

This evidence that the leader of the team matters is particularly important because the treatment of hypertension is not in doubt. Something else is not working the way it should.

“We have basically all the scientific evidence we need in terms of what interventions work. But there’s a big gap between that and what’s actually being done in the real world,” she said.

Mills said she was not surprised that pharmacists got the best results “because so much of it has to do with titrating medications and finding the right kind of medications for each patient.”

Additionally, BP management and control falls right into pharmacists’ wheelhouse, Mills noted, including evaluating medication side effects and talking to patients about medication adherence.
 

Why Pharmacists May Be More Successful

In an accompanying editorial, Ross T. Tsuyuki, PharmD, with the EPICORE Centre, Division of Cardiology, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and coauthors said the Mills study provides further data to support pharmacists leading BP control efforts, but it’s not the data that have been keeping the model from changing. The barriers include turf wars and lack of legislative change.

The editorialists also said having pharmacist-led BP teams is only the first step. “We need pharmacists to independently prescribe,” they wrote.

“Since individual states govern the scope of practice of pharmacists,” the editorialists wrote, “we have the enormous task of changing regulations to allow pharmacists to independently prescribe for hypertension. But it can be done. The Canadian province of Alberta allows pharmacists to prescribe. And more recently, Idaho. While most states allow some sort of collaborative (dependent) prescribing, that is only a first step.”

Allowing pharmacists to independently prescribe will help populations who do not have a physician or can’t get access to a physician, the editorialists wrote. But changing state legislation would be a lengthy and complex effort.
 

Physician-Led BP Control Model ‘Seems to Fail Miserably’

Coauthor of the editorial, Florian Rader, MD, MSc, medical director of the Hypertension Center of Excellence at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said in an interview that, currently, physician-led teams are the norm, “and that model seems to fail miserably.”

He offered several key reasons for that. In primary care, patients with hypertension often have other problems — they may have high cholesterol or diabetes. “They may have acute illnesses that bother them as well as hypertension that doesn’t bother them,” he said.

Physicians tend to find excuses not to increase or add BP medications, Rader said. “We tend then to blame ‘white coat effect’ or say ‘you’re just nervous today.’ ”

Pharmacists, comparatively, are more protocol driven, he said. “They essentially look at blood pressure and they have an algorithm in their mind. If the blood pressure hits the guideline-stated bar, start this medication. If it hits another bar, increase or add another medication.”

Rader said turf wars are also keeping physician-led teams from changing, fueled by fears that patients will seek care from pharmacists instead of physicians.

“I don’t think the pharmacists will steal a single patient,” Rader said. “If a physician had a healthcare partner like a pharmacist to optimize blood pressure, then [patients] come back to the physician with normalized BP on the right medications. I think it’s a total win-win. I think we just have to get over that.”

Pharmacist-led warfarin clinics are very well established, Rader said, “but for whatever reason, when it comes to blood pressure, physicians are a little bit more hesitant.”
 

Collaboration Yes, Independent No

Hypertension expert Donald J. DiPette, MD, Health Sciences Distinguished Professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of South Carolina, Columbia, said he completely agrees with Mills and colleagues’ conclusion. “Pharmacists and community health workers are most effective at leading BP intervention implementation and should be prioritized in future hypertension control efforts.”

The conclusion “is in line with the thinking of major organizations,” said DiPette, who helped develop the WHO’s most recent pharmacological treatment of hypertension guidelines. “WHO suggests that pharmacological treatment of hypertension can be provided by nonphysician professionals such as pharmacists and nurses as long as the following conditions are met: Proper training, prescribing authority, specific management protocols, and physician oversight.”

DiPette strongly believes BP control efforts should be supervised by a physician, but that could come in different ways. He suggested a collaborative but physician-supervised development of a protocol. Everyone contributes, but the physician signs off on it.

As for the Idaho example of independent practice for pharmacists, DiPette said he doesn’t think that will make a big difference in control rates. “That’s still not team-based care.”
 

Community Health Workers Key

He said he was also glad to see community healthcare workers emerge as the next-most-effective group after pharmacists to lead BP control teams. This is particularly important as BP control efforts globally need to consider the cultural experience of individual communities. “The community worker is on the ground, and can help overcome some of the cultural barriers,” he said.

“The key is to focus on team-based care and moving away from silo practice,” DiPette said.

Physicians, he said, often fall into “clinical or therapeutic inertia,” where BP is concerned. “We fail to titrate or add additional hypertensive medications even when they’re clearly indicated by the blood pressure. This is a problem not with the individual patient or the healthcare system, this is on us as physicians.”

Nonphysicians are more aligned with following protocols and guidelines, irrespective of the dynamics of what’s going on, he said.

And following protocols rigidly is a good thing for hypertension. “We’re not overtreating hypertension,” he emphasized. “We’re undertreating it.”

Reversing the trend on hypertension will take a sea change in medicine — changing institutions, systems, and individuals who have been doing things the same way for decades, he said.

“Our hypertension control rates are dismal,” DiPette said. “What’s more alarming is they’re going down. That’s the urgency. That’s the burning platform. We must strongly consider doing something different.”

Tsuyuki has received investigator-initiated arm’s length research grants from Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi. He has been a speaker/consultant for Merck, Emergent BioSolutions, and Shoppers Drug Mart/Loblaw Companies Limited. Rader has been a consultant for Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Idorsia, Medtronic, and ReCor Medical. Mills and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. DiPette declared no relevant financial relationships. He was part of a leadership team that developed WHO guidelines on hypertension.

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