Mortality risk associated with neurodegenerative disease is higher, and mortality risk associated with other causes lower, among former Scottish professional soccer players versus matched controls, findings from a retrospective epidemiologic analysis suggest.

Nikada/Getty Images

Former professional soccer players included in the analysis also received more dementia-related medication prescriptions than did controls, Daniel F. Mackay, PhD, of the Institute of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and his colleagues reported online Oct. 21 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Overall mortality during a median follow-up of 18 years from study entry at the age of 40 years was 15.4% among 7,676 former players, and 16.5% among 23,028 controls matched based on age, sex, and degree of social deprivation. All-cause mortality was lower among players versus controls before age 70 years, and was higher thereafter, and the mortality rates associated with ischemic heart disease and lung cancer were lower among the players (hazard ratios, 0.80 and 0.53, respectively), the investigators found.

Mortality rates from stroke or cerebrovascular disease were similar in the players and controls (HR, 0.88), they noted.

However, mortality with neurodegenerative disease listed as the primary cause was 1.7% in players versus 0.5% in controls (HR adjusted for competing risks of death, 3.45), they said. The estimated risk of death with neurodegenerative disease was highest among those with Alzheimer’s disease and lowest for those with Parkinson’s disease (HRs, 5.07 and 2.15, respectively).

Dementia-related medications also were prescribed more frequently for players vs. controls (odds ratio, 4.90).

A subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between goalkeepers and outfielders with respect to mortality with neurodegenerative disease listed as a factor (HR, 0.73), but dementia-related medications were prescribed less often to goalkeepers (OR, 0.41).

Concerns about the risk of neurodegenerative diseases among participants in contact sports have been raised, in part because of the recognition of pathologic changes of chronic traumatic encephalopathy among participants across a range of such sports, the investigators explained, noting that data regarding the risk of neurodegenerative disease among former professional soccer players are limited.

The findings of the current study, in terms of lower all-cause mortality up to the age of 70 years, are similar to those in previous studies involving elite athletes across a range of sports, and “may reflect higher levels of physical activity and lower levels of obesity and smoking in elite athletes than in the general population,” they noted.

“In contrast, mortality from neurodegenerative disease was higher among former soccer players, a finding consistent with studies involving former players in the U.S. National Football League,” they added, concluding that the findings, which “may be valuable to inform the management of risks in the sport,” require confirmation in prospective studies.

This study was supported by the Football Association and Professional Footballers’ Association, and by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Fellowship. Dr. Mackay reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mackay D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908483.

Mortality risk associated with neurodegenerative disease is higher, and mortality risk associated with other causes lower, among former Scottish professional soccer players versus matched controls, findings from a retrospective epidemiologic analysis suggest.

Nikada/Getty Images

Former professional soccer players included in the analysis also received more dementia-related medication prescriptions than did controls, Daniel F. Mackay, PhD, of the Institute of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and his colleagues reported online Oct. 21 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Overall mortality during a median follow-up of 18 years from study entry at the age of 40 years was 15.4% among 7,676 former players, and 16.5% among 23,028 controls matched based on age, sex, and degree of social deprivation. All-cause mortality was lower among players versus controls before age 70 years, and was higher thereafter, and the mortality rates associated with ischemic heart disease and lung cancer were lower among the players (hazard ratios, 0.80 and 0.53, respectively), the investigators found.

Mortality rates from stroke or cerebrovascular disease were similar in the players and controls (HR, 0.88), they noted.

However, mortality with neurodegenerative disease listed as the primary cause was 1.7% in players versus 0.5% in controls (HR adjusted for competing risks of death, 3.45), they said. The estimated risk of death with neurodegenerative disease was highest among those with Alzheimer’s disease and lowest for those with Parkinson’s disease (HRs, 5.07 and 2.15, respectively).

Dementia-related medications also were prescribed more frequently for players vs. controls (odds ratio, 4.90).

A subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between goalkeepers and outfielders with respect to mortality with neurodegenerative disease listed as a factor (HR, 0.73), but dementia-related medications were prescribed less often to goalkeepers (OR, 0.41).

Concerns about the risk of neurodegenerative diseases among participants in contact sports have been raised, in part because of the recognition of pathologic changes of chronic traumatic encephalopathy among participants across a range of such sports, the investigators explained, noting that data regarding the risk of neurodegenerative disease among former professional soccer players are limited.

The findings of the current study, in terms of lower all-cause mortality up to the age of 70 years, are similar to those in previous studies involving elite athletes across a range of sports, and “may reflect higher levels of physical activity and lower levels of obesity and smoking in elite athletes than in the general population,” they noted.

“In contrast, mortality from neurodegenerative disease was higher among former soccer players, a finding consistent with studies involving former players in the U.S. National Football League,” they added, concluding that the findings, which “may be valuable to inform the management of risks in the sport,” require confirmation in prospective studies.

This study was supported by the Football Association and Professional Footballers’ Association, and by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Fellowship. Dr. Mackay reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mackay D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908483.

Mortality risk associated with neurodegenerative disease is higher, and mortality risk associated with other causes lower, among former Scottish professional soccer players versus matched controls, findings from a retrospective epidemiologic analysis suggest.

Nikada/Getty Images

Former professional soccer players included in the analysis also received more dementia-related medication prescriptions than did controls, Daniel F. Mackay, PhD, of the Institute of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and his colleagues reported online Oct. 21 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Overall mortality during a median follow-up of 18 years from study entry at the age of 40 years was 15.4% among 7,676 former players, and 16.5% among 23,028 controls matched based on age, sex, and degree of social deprivation. All-cause mortality was lower among players versus controls before age 70 years, and was higher thereafter, and the mortality rates associated with ischemic heart disease and lung cancer were lower among the players (hazard ratios, 0.80 and 0.53, respectively), the investigators found.

Mortality rates from stroke or cerebrovascular disease were similar in the players and controls (HR, 0.88), they noted.

However, mortality with neurodegenerative disease listed as the primary cause was 1.7% in players versus 0.5% in controls (HR adjusted for competing risks of death, 3.45), they said. The estimated risk of death with neurodegenerative disease was highest among those with Alzheimer’s disease and lowest for those with Parkinson’s disease (HRs, 5.07 and 2.15, respectively).

Dementia-related medications also were prescribed more frequently for players vs. controls (odds ratio, 4.90).

A subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between goalkeepers and outfielders with respect to mortality with neurodegenerative disease listed as a factor (HR, 0.73), but dementia-related medications were prescribed less often to goalkeepers (OR, 0.41).

Concerns about the risk of neurodegenerative diseases among participants in contact sports have been raised, in part because of the recognition of pathologic changes of chronic traumatic encephalopathy among participants across a range of such sports, the investigators explained, noting that data regarding the risk of neurodegenerative disease among former professional soccer players are limited.

The findings of the current study, in terms of lower all-cause mortality up to the age of 70 years, are similar to those in previous studies involving elite athletes across a range of sports, and “may reflect higher levels of physical activity and lower levels of obesity and smoking in elite athletes than in the general population,” they noted.

“In contrast, mortality from neurodegenerative disease was higher among former soccer players, a finding consistent with studies involving former players in the U.S. National Football League,” they added, concluding that the findings, which “may be valuable to inform the management of risks in the sport,” require confirmation in prospective studies.

This study was supported by the Football Association and Professional Footballers’ Association, and by an NHS Research Scotland Career Researcher Fellowship. Dr. Mackay reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mackay D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908483.

Guidelines on the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been updated, including recommendations on managing patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy and on use of endoscopy and new therapeutic approaches.

Writing in Annals of Internal Medicine, an international group of experts published an update to the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding, with a focus on resuscitation and risk assessment; pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and pharmacologic management; and secondary prophylaxis.

Alan N. Barkun, MDCM, MSc, from McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors first recommended that fluid resuscitation should be initiated in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and hemodynamic instability to avoid hemorrhagic shock and restore end-organ perfusion and tissue oxygenation while the bleeding is brought under control.

They acknowledged the uncertainty around whether colloid or crystalloid fluid should be used, but suggested routine use of colloids was not justified because they were more expensive and did not appear to increase survival.

On the question of whether the resuscitation should be aggressive or restrictive in its timing and rate, the group said there was not enough evidence to support a recommendation on this. “The important issue in patients with hemorrhagic shock due to trauma or UGIB [upper gastrointestinal bleeding] is to stop the bleeding while minimizing hemodynamic compromise,” they wrote.

They also advised blood transfusions in patients with a hemoglobin level below 80 g/L who did not have underlying cardiovascular disease, but suggested a higher hemoglobin threshold for those with underlying cardiovascular disease.

The second recommendation was that patients with a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less were at very low risk for rebleeding and mortality, and these patients may therefore not need hospitalization or inpatient endoscopy. They advised against using the AIMS65 prognostic score for this purpose because it was designed to identify patients at high risk of death, not those at low risk for safe discharge.

In regard to endoscopic management, they advocated that all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding – whether low or high risk – undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. This was even more urgent in patients being treated with anticoagulants. “Because of the recognized benefits of early endoscopy, coagulopathy should be treated as necessary but endoscopy should not be delayed,” they wrote.

Patients with acutely bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata should undergo endoscopic therapy preferably with thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection, or with hemoclips depending on the bleeding location and patient characteristics.

The group also included two conditional recommendations, based on very-low-quality evidence, that patients with actively bleeding ulcers receive TC-325 hemostatic powder as temporizing therapy to stop the bleeding if conventional endoscopic therapies aren’t available or fail. However, they stressed that TC-325 should not be used as a single therapeutic strategy.

Because of a lack of efficacy data and low availability of expertise in the technology, the authors said they could not make a recommendation for or against using a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) to assess the need for further endoscopic therapy.

“The group generally agreed that although making a recommendation for or against using DEP to manage UGIB is premature, DEP has the potential to alter the usual approach to visually assessing bleeding lesion risk when evaluating the need for, and adequacy of, endoscopic hemostasis.”

The guidelines also addressed the issue of pharmacologic management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. They strongly recommended that patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy should then receive an intravenous loading dose of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, followed by continuous intravenous infusion.

“Cost-effectiveness studies have suggested that high-dose intravenous PPIs after successful endoscopic hemostasis improve outcomes at a modest cost increase relative to non–high-dose intravenous or oral PPI strategies,” they wrote.

A second conditional recommendation, based on very-low-quality evidence, was that patients with a bleeding ulcer who were at high risk for rebleeding be also treated twice-daily with oral PPIs for 2 weeks, then once-daily. They also recommended patients on cardiovascular prophylaxis with single or dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulant therapy be given PPIs.

“The consensus group concluded that, for high-risk patients with an ongoing need for anticoagulants, the evidence suggests that the benefits of secondary prophylaxis outweigh the risks.”

The group was supported by a grant from CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes and from the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. Nine authors declared grants, personal fees, honoraria and other funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device sector outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Barkun A et al. Ann Intern Med 2019, October 22. doi: 10.7326/M19-1795.

Guidelines on the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been updated, including recommendations on managing patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy and on use of endoscopy and new therapeutic approaches.

Writing in Annals of Internal Medicine, an international group of experts published an update to the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding, with a focus on resuscitation and risk assessment; pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and pharmacologic management; and secondary prophylaxis.

Alan N. Barkun, MDCM, MSc, from McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors first recommended that fluid resuscitation should be initiated in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and hemodynamic instability to avoid hemorrhagic shock and restore end-organ perfusion and tissue oxygenation while the bleeding is brought under control.

They acknowledged the uncertainty around whether colloid or crystalloid fluid should be used, but suggested routine use of colloids was not justified because they were more expensive and did not appear to increase survival.

On the question of whether the resuscitation should be aggressive or restrictive in its timing and rate, the group said there was not enough evidence to support a recommendation on this. “The important issue in patients with hemorrhagic shock due to trauma or UGIB [upper gastrointestinal bleeding] is to stop the bleeding while minimizing hemodynamic compromise,” they wrote.

They also advised blood transfusions in patients with a hemoglobin level below 80 g/L who did not have underlying cardiovascular disease, but suggested a higher hemoglobin threshold for those with underlying cardiovascular disease.

The second recommendation was that patients with a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less were at very low risk for rebleeding and mortality, and these patients may therefore not need hospitalization or inpatient endoscopy. They advised against using the AIMS65 prognostic score for this purpose because it was designed to identify patients at high risk of death, not those at low risk for safe discharge.

In regard to endoscopic management, they advocated that all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding – whether low or high risk – undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. This was even more urgent in patients being treated with anticoagulants. “Because of the recognized benefits of early endoscopy, coagulopathy should be treated as necessary but endoscopy should not be delayed,” they wrote.

Patients with acutely bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata should undergo endoscopic therapy preferably with thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection, or with hemoclips depending on the bleeding location and patient characteristics.

The group also included two conditional recommendations, based on very-low-quality evidence, that patients with actively bleeding ulcers receive TC-325 hemostatic powder as temporizing therapy to stop the bleeding if conventional endoscopic therapies aren’t available or fail. However, they stressed that TC-325 should not be used as a single therapeutic strategy.

Because of a lack of efficacy data and low availability of expertise in the technology, the authors said they could not make a recommendation for or against using a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) to assess the need for further endoscopic therapy.

“The group generally agreed that although making a recommendation for or against using DEP to manage UGIB is premature, DEP has the potential to alter the usual approach to visually assessing bleeding lesion risk when evaluating the need for, and adequacy of, endoscopic hemostasis.”

The guidelines also addressed the issue of pharmacologic management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. They strongly recommended that patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy should then receive an intravenous loading dose of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, followed by continuous intravenous infusion.

“Cost-effectiveness studies have suggested that high-dose intravenous PPIs after successful endoscopic hemostasis improve outcomes at a modest cost increase relative to non–high-dose intravenous or oral PPI strategies,” they wrote.

A second conditional recommendation, based on very-low-quality evidence, was that patients with a bleeding ulcer who were at high risk for rebleeding be also treated twice-daily with oral PPIs for 2 weeks, then once-daily. They also recommended patients on cardiovascular prophylaxis with single or dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulant therapy be given PPIs.

“The consensus group concluded that, for high-risk patients with an ongoing need for anticoagulants, the evidence suggests that the benefits of secondary prophylaxis outweigh the risks.”

The group was supported by a grant from CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes and from the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. Nine authors declared grants, personal fees, honoraria and other funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device sector outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Barkun A et al. Ann Intern Med 2019, October 22. doi: 10.7326/M19-1795.

Guidelines on the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been updated, including recommendations on managing patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy and on use of endoscopy and new therapeutic approaches.

Writing in Annals of Internal Medicine, an international group of experts published an update to the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding, with a focus on resuscitation and risk assessment; pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and pharmacologic management; and secondary prophylaxis.

Alan N. Barkun, MDCM, MSc, from McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors first recommended that fluid resuscitation should be initiated in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and hemodynamic instability to avoid hemorrhagic shock and restore end-organ perfusion and tissue oxygenation while the bleeding is brought under control.

They acknowledged the uncertainty around whether colloid or crystalloid fluid should be used, but suggested routine use of colloids was not justified because they were more expensive and did not appear to increase survival.

On the question of whether the resuscitation should be aggressive or restrictive in its timing and rate, the group said there was not enough evidence to support a recommendation on this. “The important issue in patients with hemorrhagic shock due to trauma or UGIB [upper gastrointestinal bleeding] is to stop the bleeding while minimizing hemodynamic compromise,” they wrote.

They also advised blood transfusions in patients with a hemoglobin level below 80 g/L who did not have underlying cardiovascular disease, but suggested a higher hemoglobin threshold for those with underlying cardiovascular disease.

The second recommendation was that patients with a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less were at very low risk for rebleeding and mortality, and these patients may therefore not need hospitalization or inpatient endoscopy. They advised against using the AIMS65 prognostic score for this purpose because it was designed to identify patients at high risk of death, not those at low risk for safe discharge.

In regard to endoscopic management, they advocated that all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding – whether low or high risk – undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. This was even more urgent in patients being treated with anticoagulants. “Because of the recognized benefits of early endoscopy, coagulopathy should be treated as necessary but endoscopy should not be delayed,” they wrote.

Patients with acutely bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata should undergo endoscopic therapy preferably with thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection, or with hemoclips depending on the bleeding location and patient characteristics.

The group also included two conditional recommendations, based on very-low-quality evidence, that patients with actively bleeding ulcers receive TC-325 hemostatic powder as temporizing therapy to stop the bleeding if conventional endoscopic therapies aren’t available or fail. However, they stressed that TC-325 should not be used as a single therapeutic strategy.

Because of a lack of efficacy data and low availability of expertise in the technology, the authors said they could not make a recommendation for or against using a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) to assess the need for further endoscopic therapy.

“The group generally agreed that although making a recommendation for or against using DEP to manage UGIB is premature, DEP has the potential to alter the usual approach to visually assessing bleeding lesion risk when evaluating the need for, and adequacy of, endoscopic hemostasis.”

The guidelines also addressed the issue of pharmacologic management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. They strongly recommended that patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy should then receive an intravenous loading dose of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, followed by continuous intravenous infusion.

“Cost-effectiveness studies have suggested that high-dose intravenous PPIs after successful endoscopic hemostasis improve outcomes at a modest cost increase relative to non–high-dose intravenous or oral PPI strategies,” they wrote.

A second conditional recommendation, based on very-low-quality evidence, was that patients with a bleeding ulcer who were at high risk for rebleeding be also treated twice-daily with oral PPIs for 2 weeks, then once-daily. They also recommended patients on cardiovascular prophylaxis with single or dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulant therapy be given PPIs.

“The consensus group concluded that, for high-risk patients with an ongoing need for anticoagulants, the evidence suggests that the benefits of secondary prophylaxis outweigh the risks.”

The group was supported by a grant from CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes and from the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. Nine authors declared grants, personal fees, honoraria and other funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device sector outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Barkun A et al. Ann Intern Med 2019, October 22. doi: 10.7326/M19-1795.

NEW ORLEANS – Race compatibility is a factor that can affect survival and needs to be considered when matching lung transplant candidates to potential donors, results from a large retrospective analysis suggest.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Specifically, whites had significantly worse survival when receiving lungs from African American donors in this registry analysis, according to study investigator Alexis Kofi Okoh, MD.

By contrast, donor-to-recipient race compatibility (DRRC) did not affect posttransplant survival among African American or Hispanic patients, said Dr. Okoh, who is with the lung transplant division at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

While race mismatch has been shown to affect outcomes in kidney, heart, and liver transplant settings, the data for DRRC in lung transplant prior to this analysis generally has been limited to small, single-center studies, according to Dr. Okoh.

“If you do have the option, [race compatibility] should highly be considered, because it clearly has an impact on outcomes,” Dr. Okoh said in an interview here at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Considering the race of both donor and recipient is especially important now that the lung transplant population is becoming more ethnically diverse, he added.

The study was based on an analysis of 19,504 lung transplant recipients in the prospectively maintained United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database during 2006-2018. In that cohort, 16,485 recipients were white, 1,787 were African American, and 1,232 were Hispanic.

Race-matched donor organs were used in two-thirds (66.2%) of white recipients, about one-quarter (26.8%) of African American recipients, and one-third (33.0%) of Hispanic recipients.

Overall, survival post–lung transplant was significantly poorer among recipients who did not receive a race-matched organ in Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, Dr. Okoh said, though, that this effect was diminished after they adjusted for patient baseline characteristics (P = 0.2809).

For African American recipients, the unadjusted and adjusted survival estimates were no different regardless of donor race, and likewise, there were no apparent survival differences between Hispanic recipients who received race matched or mismatched organs.

Survival among white recipients, however, was significantly affected by race of the recipient, with decreased survival estimates noted even after adjustment for patient characteristics, according to Dr. Okoh’s presentation.

Results of regression analysis showed that white recipient/African American donor was the only race mismatch to significantly affect survival, Dr. Okoh said in the interview.

The posttransplant survival hazard ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) reported by Dr. Okoh with a no race mismatch serving as reference were 1.15 (1.08-1.23) for whites with African American donors, and 1.09 (1.01-1.18) for whites with Hispanic donors.

Dr. Okoh and coinvestigators reported no relevant conflicts in relation to their study.

SOURCE: Okoh A et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.220.

NEW ORLEANS – Race compatibility is a factor that can affect survival and needs to be considered when matching lung transplant candidates to potential donors, results from a large retrospective analysis suggest.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Specifically, whites had significantly worse survival when receiving lungs from African American donors in this registry analysis, according to study investigator Alexis Kofi Okoh, MD.

By contrast, donor-to-recipient race compatibility (DRRC) did not affect posttransplant survival among African American or Hispanic patients, said Dr. Okoh, who is with the lung transplant division at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

While race mismatch has been shown to affect outcomes in kidney, heart, and liver transplant settings, the data for DRRC in lung transplant prior to this analysis generally has been limited to small, single-center studies, according to Dr. Okoh.

“If you do have the option, [race compatibility] should highly be considered, because it clearly has an impact on outcomes,” Dr. Okoh said in an interview here at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Considering the race of both donor and recipient is especially important now that the lung transplant population is becoming more ethnically diverse, he added.

The study was based on an analysis of 19,504 lung transplant recipients in the prospectively maintained United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database during 2006-2018. In that cohort, 16,485 recipients were white, 1,787 were African American, and 1,232 were Hispanic.

Race-matched donor organs were used in two-thirds (66.2%) of white recipients, about one-quarter (26.8%) of African American recipients, and one-third (33.0%) of Hispanic recipients.

Overall, survival post–lung transplant was significantly poorer among recipients who did not receive a race-matched organ in Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, Dr. Okoh said, though, that this effect was diminished after they adjusted for patient baseline characteristics (P = 0.2809).

For African American recipients, the unadjusted and adjusted survival estimates were no different regardless of donor race, and likewise, there were no apparent survival differences between Hispanic recipients who received race matched or mismatched organs.

Survival among white recipients, however, was significantly affected by race of the recipient, with decreased survival estimates noted even after adjustment for patient characteristics, according to Dr. Okoh’s presentation.

Results of regression analysis showed that white recipient/African American donor was the only race mismatch to significantly affect survival, Dr. Okoh said in the interview.

The posttransplant survival hazard ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) reported by Dr. Okoh with a no race mismatch serving as reference were 1.15 (1.08-1.23) for whites with African American donors, and 1.09 (1.01-1.18) for whites with Hispanic donors.

Dr. Okoh and coinvestigators reported no relevant conflicts in relation to their study.

SOURCE: Okoh A et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.220.

NEW ORLEANS – Race compatibility is a factor that can affect survival and needs to be considered when matching lung transplant candidates to potential donors, results from a large retrospective analysis suggest.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Specifically, whites had significantly worse survival when receiving lungs from African American donors in this registry analysis, according to study investigator Alexis Kofi Okoh, MD.

By contrast, donor-to-recipient race compatibility (DRRC) did not affect posttransplant survival among African American or Hispanic patients, said Dr. Okoh, who is with the lung transplant division at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J.

While race mismatch has been shown to affect outcomes in kidney, heart, and liver transplant settings, the data for DRRC in lung transplant prior to this analysis generally has been limited to small, single-center studies, according to Dr. Okoh.

“If you do have the option, [race compatibility] should highly be considered, because it clearly has an impact on outcomes,” Dr. Okoh said in an interview here at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Considering the race of both donor and recipient is especially important now that the lung transplant population is becoming more ethnically diverse, he added.

The study was based on an analysis of 19,504 lung transplant recipients in the prospectively maintained United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database during 2006-2018. In that cohort, 16,485 recipients were white, 1,787 were African American, and 1,232 were Hispanic.

Race-matched donor organs were used in two-thirds (66.2%) of white recipients, about one-quarter (26.8%) of African American recipients, and one-third (33.0%) of Hispanic recipients.

Overall, survival post–lung transplant was significantly poorer among recipients who did not receive a race-matched organ in Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, Dr. Okoh said, though, that this effect was diminished after they adjusted for patient baseline characteristics (P = 0.2809).

For African American recipients, the unadjusted and adjusted survival estimates were no different regardless of donor race, and likewise, there were no apparent survival differences between Hispanic recipients who received race matched or mismatched organs.

Survival among white recipients, however, was significantly affected by race of the recipient, with decreased survival estimates noted even after adjustment for patient characteristics, according to Dr. Okoh’s presentation.

Results of regression analysis showed that white recipient/African American donor was the only race mismatch to significantly affect survival, Dr. Okoh said in the interview.

The posttransplant survival hazard ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) reported by Dr. Okoh with a no race mismatch serving as reference were 1.15 (1.08-1.23) for whites with African American donors, and 1.09 (1.01-1.18) for whites with Hispanic donors.

Dr. Okoh and coinvestigators reported no relevant conflicts in relation to their study.

SOURCE: Okoh A et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.220.

NEW ORLEANS – Wellness among physicians begins with a focus on reducing stress. Attendees of the CHEST annual meeting were given the opportunity to spend some time with the ultimate stress reliever - puppies. A local animal rescue organization, “Take Paws Rescue,” set up a venue for visiting with (and holding and petting) a litter of adoptable puppies. Several attendees decided on the spot to adopt one of these pups. Others just took the opportunity to cuddle.

Therese Borden/MDedge News

Christopher Carroll, MD, a specialist in pediatric critical care with Connecticut Children’s Medical Center in Hartford, knows the value of animals to relieve stress in both patients and doctors. He convinced his medical center to allow dogs into the pediatric ICU, with appropriate cautions, to provide stress relief and joy to both young patients and staff.

The puppies will be in the Exhibit Hall every day at the meeting between 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Wellness among physicians begins with a focus on reducing stress. Attendees of the CHEST annual meeting were given the opportunity to spend some time with the ultimate stress reliever - puppies. A local animal rescue organization, “Take Paws Rescue,” set up a venue for visiting with (and holding and petting) a litter of adoptable puppies. Several attendees decided on the spot to adopt one of these pups. Others just took the opportunity to cuddle.

Therese Borden/MDedge News

Christopher Carroll, MD, a specialist in pediatric critical care with Connecticut Children’s Medical Center in Hartford, knows the value of animals to relieve stress in both patients and doctors. He convinced his medical center to allow dogs into the pediatric ICU, with appropriate cautions, to provide stress relief and joy to both young patients and staff.

The puppies will be in the Exhibit Hall every day at the meeting between 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Wellness among physicians begins with a focus on reducing stress. Attendees of the CHEST annual meeting were given the opportunity to spend some time with the ultimate stress reliever - puppies. A local animal rescue organization, “Take Paws Rescue,” set up a venue for visiting with (and holding and petting) a litter of adoptable puppies. Several attendees decided on the spot to adopt one of these pups. Others just took the opportunity to cuddle.

Therese Borden/MDedge News

Christopher Carroll, MD, a specialist in pediatric critical care with Connecticut Children’s Medical Center in Hartford, knows the value of animals to relieve stress in both patients and doctors. He convinced his medical center to allow dogs into the pediatric ICU, with appropriate cautions, to provide stress relief and joy to both young patients and staff.

The puppies will be in the Exhibit Hall every day at the meeting between 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Data collected by the ProAir Digihaler suggest patients with previous, but not current, severe clinical asthma exacerbations may still use their rescue inhalers daily and therefore require additional therapy.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Researchers studied asthma patients who had experienced exacerbations in the previous year. Patients who also had exacerbations while on study used the ProAir Digihaler about twice a day, on average. Patients without on-study exacerbations used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.14 times per day.

The daily use among patients without exacerbations suggests their asthma is “still quite uncontrolled,” and, according to guidelines, they may require additional therapy, said Roy Pleasants, PharmD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Pleasants presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

He and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study (NCT02969408) of ProAir Digihaler use in adults who had at least one severe clinical asthma exacerbation in the previous 12 months. They had an Asthma Control Questionnaire score of 1.5 or greater, were on moderate-dose inhaled corticosteroids (with or without a long-acting beta-agonist), and had stable asthma controller dosing for at least 3 months.

For this study, the ProAir Digihaler replaced patients’ other rescue medications. The ProAir Digihaler is a digital inhaler that delivers 90 mcg of albuterol per dose, detects the date and time a dose was prepared, and records the inhalation profile. Over a 12-week period, the ProAir Digihaler recorded each use, which was defined as consecutive inhalations within 60 seconds.

Of the 381 patients enrolled in the study, 360 (94.5%) made at least one valid inhalation. The mean age of these patients was 50 years, and 80.6% were female. Of the 360 patients, 64 experienced 78 exacerbations while on study.

Most episodes of inhaler use consisted of a single inhalation (58.9%), although 35.8% consisted of two inhalations, 3.5% consisted of three inhalations, and 1.8% consisted of four or more inhalations.

The mean peak inspiratory flow was 73.18 L/min (standard deviation [SD] 20.33) in patients without exacerbations. Among patients with exacerbations, the mean peak inspiratory flow was 71.36 (SD 23.80) during exacerbation and 74.71 L/min (SD 22.46) outside the exacerbation window, which was 14 days before and after the exacerbation peak.

The mean inhalation volume was 1.45 L (SD 0.75) among patients without exacerbations, 1.44 L (SD 0.66) outside the exacerbation window, and 1.44 L (SD 0.76) during exacerbation. The mean inhalation duration was 1.62 sec (SD 0.88), 1.59 sec (SD 0.77), and 1.61 sec (SD 0.82), respectively.

“If you look at the inhalation volume in the 64 patients who exacerbated, it really didn’t change during exacerbation,” Dr. Pleasants noted. “Essentially, you can say the same thing about inhalation duration.”

Patients without exacerbations used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.14 (SD 2.35) times per day. Patients who had at least one exacerbation used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.87 (SD 2.78) times per day outside the exacerbation window and 2.43 (SD 3.67) times during exacerbation.

“As you would predict, those exacerbating patients were using more albuterol than patients who were not exacerbating,” Dr. Pleasants said. “Even when they weren’t exacerbating, that frequency of daily albuterol use is pretty much indicating these patients were not so well controlled.”

Dr. Pleasants went on to say that data from the ProAir Digihaler could help identify, in real time, patients with poor asthma control and those with impending exacerbations.

This study was sponsored by Teva, makers of the ProAir Digihaler. Dr. Pleasants disclosed relationships with Teva, Grifols, Sunovion, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pleasants R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.273.

NEW ORLEANS – Data collected by the ProAir Digihaler suggest patients with previous, but not current, severe clinical asthma exacerbations may still use their rescue inhalers daily and therefore require additional therapy.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Researchers studied asthma patients who had experienced exacerbations in the previous year. Patients who also had exacerbations while on study used the ProAir Digihaler about twice a day, on average. Patients without on-study exacerbations used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.14 times per day.

The daily use among patients without exacerbations suggests their asthma is “still quite uncontrolled,” and, according to guidelines, they may require additional therapy, said Roy Pleasants, PharmD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Pleasants presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

He and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study (NCT02969408) of ProAir Digihaler use in adults who had at least one severe clinical asthma exacerbation in the previous 12 months. They had an Asthma Control Questionnaire score of 1.5 or greater, were on moderate-dose inhaled corticosteroids (with or without a long-acting beta-agonist), and had stable asthma controller dosing for at least 3 months.

For this study, the ProAir Digihaler replaced patients’ other rescue medications. The ProAir Digihaler is a digital inhaler that delivers 90 mcg of albuterol per dose, detects the date and time a dose was prepared, and records the inhalation profile. Over a 12-week period, the ProAir Digihaler recorded each use, which was defined as consecutive inhalations within 60 seconds.

Of the 381 patients enrolled in the study, 360 (94.5%) made at least one valid inhalation. The mean age of these patients was 50 years, and 80.6% were female. Of the 360 patients, 64 experienced 78 exacerbations while on study.

Most episodes of inhaler use consisted of a single inhalation (58.9%), although 35.8% consisted of two inhalations, 3.5% consisted of three inhalations, and 1.8% consisted of four or more inhalations.

The mean peak inspiratory flow was 73.18 L/min (standard deviation [SD] 20.33) in patients without exacerbations. Among patients with exacerbations, the mean peak inspiratory flow was 71.36 (SD 23.80) during exacerbation and 74.71 L/min (SD 22.46) outside the exacerbation window, which was 14 days before and after the exacerbation peak.

The mean inhalation volume was 1.45 L (SD 0.75) among patients without exacerbations, 1.44 L (SD 0.66) outside the exacerbation window, and 1.44 L (SD 0.76) during exacerbation. The mean inhalation duration was 1.62 sec (SD 0.88), 1.59 sec (SD 0.77), and 1.61 sec (SD 0.82), respectively.

“If you look at the inhalation volume in the 64 patients who exacerbated, it really didn’t change during exacerbation,” Dr. Pleasants noted. “Essentially, you can say the same thing about inhalation duration.”

Patients without exacerbations used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.14 (SD 2.35) times per day. Patients who had at least one exacerbation used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.87 (SD 2.78) times per day outside the exacerbation window and 2.43 (SD 3.67) times during exacerbation.

“As you would predict, those exacerbating patients were using more albuterol than patients who were not exacerbating,” Dr. Pleasants said. “Even when they weren’t exacerbating, that frequency of daily albuterol use is pretty much indicating these patients were not so well controlled.”

Dr. Pleasants went on to say that data from the ProAir Digihaler could help identify, in real time, patients with poor asthma control and those with impending exacerbations.

This study was sponsored by Teva, makers of the ProAir Digihaler. Dr. Pleasants disclosed relationships with Teva, Grifols, Sunovion, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pleasants R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.273.

NEW ORLEANS – Data collected by the ProAir Digihaler suggest patients with previous, but not current, severe clinical asthma exacerbations may still use their rescue inhalers daily and therefore require additional therapy.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

Researchers studied asthma patients who had experienced exacerbations in the previous year. Patients who also had exacerbations while on study used the ProAir Digihaler about twice a day, on average. Patients without on-study exacerbations used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.14 times per day.

The daily use among patients without exacerbations suggests their asthma is “still quite uncontrolled,” and, according to guidelines, they may require additional therapy, said Roy Pleasants, PharmD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Pleasants presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

He and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study (NCT02969408) of ProAir Digihaler use in adults who had at least one severe clinical asthma exacerbation in the previous 12 months. They had an Asthma Control Questionnaire score of 1.5 or greater, were on moderate-dose inhaled corticosteroids (with or without a long-acting beta-agonist), and had stable asthma controller dosing for at least 3 months.

For this study, the ProAir Digihaler replaced patients’ other rescue medications. The ProAir Digihaler is a digital inhaler that delivers 90 mcg of albuterol per dose, detects the date and time a dose was prepared, and records the inhalation profile. Over a 12-week period, the ProAir Digihaler recorded each use, which was defined as consecutive inhalations within 60 seconds.

Of the 381 patients enrolled in the study, 360 (94.5%) made at least one valid inhalation. The mean age of these patients was 50 years, and 80.6% were female. Of the 360 patients, 64 experienced 78 exacerbations while on study.

Most episodes of inhaler use consisted of a single inhalation (58.9%), although 35.8% consisted of two inhalations, 3.5% consisted of three inhalations, and 1.8% consisted of four or more inhalations.

The mean peak inspiratory flow was 73.18 L/min (standard deviation [SD] 20.33) in patients without exacerbations. Among patients with exacerbations, the mean peak inspiratory flow was 71.36 (SD 23.80) during exacerbation and 74.71 L/min (SD 22.46) outside the exacerbation window, which was 14 days before and after the exacerbation peak.

The mean inhalation volume was 1.45 L (SD 0.75) among patients without exacerbations, 1.44 L (SD 0.66) outside the exacerbation window, and 1.44 L (SD 0.76) during exacerbation. The mean inhalation duration was 1.62 sec (SD 0.88), 1.59 sec (SD 0.77), and 1.61 sec (SD 0.82), respectively.

“If you look at the inhalation volume in the 64 patients who exacerbated, it really didn’t change during exacerbation,” Dr. Pleasants noted. “Essentially, you can say the same thing about inhalation duration.”

Patients without exacerbations used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.14 (SD 2.35) times per day. Patients who had at least one exacerbation used the ProAir Digihaler an average of 1.87 (SD 2.78) times per day outside the exacerbation window and 2.43 (SD 3.67) times during exacerbation.

“As you would predict, those exacerbating patients were using more albuterol than patients who were not exacerbating,” Dr. Pleasants said. “Even when they weren’t exacerbating, that frequency of daily albuterol use is pretty much indicating these patients were not so well controlled.”

Dr. Pleasants went on to say that data from the ProAir Digihaler could help identify, in real time, patients with poor asthma control and those with impending exacerbations.

This study was sponsored by Teva, makers of the ProAir Digihaler. Dr. Pleasants disclosed relationships with Teva, Grifols, Sunovion, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pleasants R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.273.

PHILADELPHIA – Among patients with chronic kidney disease with resistant hypertension, coadministration of patiromer enables more patients to stay on spironolactone, Bryan Williams, MD, of University College London, said at the scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Having the potassium-binding polymer on board allowed for more persistent use of spironolactone, both in the subgroup of patients with heart failure, and those without, he said in a late-breaking clinical trials session.

In the international, phase 2 AMBER (Spironolactone With Patiromer in the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial, 295 patients with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate from 25 to 45 mL/min per 1.73 m²) were randomly assigned to treatment with spironolactone either placebo (148) or patiromer (147).

After 12 weeks, 86% of the patiromer patients remained on spironolactone, compared with 66% of the placebo patients, for a significant between-group difference of 19.5% (P less than .0001). In addition, blood pressure lowering was significantly greater in the patiromer (–11.7 mm Hg) than in the placebo (–10.8 mm Hg) group. Results of the AMBER trial were published concurrently with Dr. Williams’ presentation (Lancet 2019 Sep 15; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32135-X).

While spironolactone is a “highly effective” drug, studies supporting guideline recommendations for its use in resistant hypertension have largely excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease because of increased risk of developing spironolactone-induced hyperkalemia, Dr. Williams told attendees. It remains unclear, however, whether coadministration of patiromer will improve long-term outcomes. Also, many placebo-treated patients in AMBER were able to continue on spironolactone without the help of patiromer, prompting one attendee to question whether there was a smarter way to target the drug, rather than treating all patients up front.

“I don’t think it’s going to be easy to say, ‘this patient’s going to respond, and this patient’s not going to respond,’ ” Dr. Williams said in response, “but at least we have an opportunity to try now in a group of patients who simply may be denied treatment because of a perception that it is difficult to use spironolactone in them.”

That perception is actually not unreasonable, he added, given that 66% of patients in the placebo group in AMBER developed hyperkalemia, suggesting that spironolactone is “not an easy drug to use” in chronic kidney disease patients.

John Teerlink, MD, of the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said the AMBER study is “another building block” in a series of developments of enabling therapies.

“I think it’s a great message for all of us to begin thinking about other therapies we can use to help modify our use of these potential life-saving therapies,” he said in a panel discussion of the results.

Patiromer’s impact on longer-term outcomes is the focus of DIAMOND, a phase 3, randomized, placebo controlled trial that is currently recruiting. DIAMOND will determine whether giving patiromer to patients who developed hyperkalemia on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors decreases cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations, by virtue of enabling continued RAAS inhibitor use.

Funding for AMBER came from Relypsa, which markets patiromer (Veltassa). Dr. Williams reported consulting for Relypsa during the conduct of the study, along with disclosures outside the scope of the AMBER study (Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vascular Dynamics).

SOURCE: Williams B. HFSA 2019.

PHILADELPHIA – Among patients with chronic kidney disease with resistant hypertension, coadministration of patiromer enables more patients to stay on spironolactone, Bryan Williams, MD, of University College London, said at the scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Having the potassium-binding polymer on board allowed for more persistent use of spironolactone, both in the subgroup of patients with heart failure, and those without, he said in a late-breaking clinical trials session.

In the international, phase 2 AMBER (Spironolactone With Patiromer in the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial, 295 patients with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate from 25 to 45 mL/min per 1.73 m²) were randomly assigned to treatment with spironolactone either placebo (148) or patiromer (147).

After 12 weeks, 86% of the patiromer patients remained on spironolactone, compared with 66% of the placebo patients, for a significant between-group difference of 19.5% (P less than .0001). In addition, blood pressure lowering was significantly greater in the patiromer (–11.7 mm Hg) than in the placebo (–10.8 mm Hg) group. Results of the AMBER trial were published concurrently with Dr. Williams’ presentation (Lancet 2019 Sep 15; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32135-X).

While spironolactone is a “highly effective” drug, studies supporting guideline recommendations for its use in resistant hypertension have largely excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease because of increased risk of developing spironolactone-induced hyperkalemia, Dr. Williams told attendees. It remains unclear, however, whether coadministration of patiromer will improve long-term outcomes. Also, many placebo-treated patients in AMBER were able to continue on spironolactone without the help of patiromer, prompting one attendee to question whether there was a smarter way to target the drug, rather than treating all patients up front.

“I don’t think it’s going to be easy to say, ‘this patient’s going to respond, and this patient’s not going to respond,’ ” Dr. Williams said in response, “but at least we have an opportunity to try now in a group of patients who simply may be denied treatment because of a perception that it is difficult to use spironolactone in them.”

That perception is actually not unreasonable, he added, given that 66% of patients in the placebo group in AMBER developed hyperkalemia, suggesting that spironolactone is “not an easy drug to use” in chronic kidney disease patients.

John Teerlink, MD, of the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said the AMBER study is “another building block” in a series of developments of enabling therapies.

“I think it’s a great message for all of us to begin thinking about other therapies we can use to help modify our use of these potential life-saving therapies,” he said in a panel discussion of the results.

Patiromer’s impact on longer-term outcomes is the focus of DIAMOND, a phase 3, randomized, placebo controlled trial that is currently recruiting. DIAMOND will determine whether giving patiromer to patients who developed hyperkalemia on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors decreases cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations, by virtue of enabling continued RAAS inhibitor use.

Funding for AMBER came from Relypsa, which markets patiromer (Veltassa). Dr. Williams reported consulting for Relypsa during the conduct of the study, along with disclosures outside the scope of the AMBER study (Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vascular Dynamics).

SOURCE: Williams B. HFSA 2019.

PHILADELPHIA – Among patients with chronic kidney disease with resistant hypertension, coadministration of patiromer enables more patients to stay on spironolactone, Bryan Williams, MD, of University College London, said at the scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Having the potassium-binding polymer on board allowed for more persistent use of spironolactone, both in the subgroup of patients with heart failure, and those without, he said in a late-breaking clinical trials session.

In the international, phase 2 AMBER (Spironolactone With Patiromer in the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial, 295 patients with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate from 25 to 45 mL/min per 1.73 m²) were randomly assigned to treatment with spironolactone either placebo (148) or patiromer (147).

After 12 weeks, 86% of the patiromer patients remained on spironolactone, compared with 66% of the placebo patients, for a significant between-group difference of 19.5% (P less than .0001). In addition, blood pressure lowering was significantly greater in the patiromer (–11.7 mm Hg) than in the placebo (–10.8 mm Hg) group. Results of the AMBER trial were published concurrently with Dr. Williams’ presentation (Lancet 2019 Sep 15; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32135-X).

While spironolactone is a “highly effective” drug, studies supporting guideline recommendations for its use in resistant hypertension have largely excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease because of increased risk of developing spironolactone-induced hyperkalemia, Dr. Williams told attendees. It remains unclear, however, whether coadministration of patiromer will improve long-term outcomes. Also, many placebo-treated patients in AMBER were able to continue on spironolactone without the help of patiromer, prompting one attendee to question whether there was a smarter way to target the drug, rather than treating all patients up front.

“I don’t think it’s going to be easy to say, ‘this patient’s going to respond, and this patient’s not going to respond,’ ” Dr. Williams said in response, “but at least we have an opportunity to try now in a group of patients who simply may be denied treatment because of a perception that it is difficult to use spironolactone in them.”

That perception is actually not unreasonable, he added, given that 66% of patients in the placebo group in AMBER developed hyperkalemia, suggesting that spironolactone is “not an easy drug to use” in chronic kidney disease patients.

John Teerlink, MD, of the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said the AMBER study is “another building block” in a series of developments of enabling therapies.

“I think it’s a great message for all of us to begin thinking about other therapies we can use to help modify our use of these potential life-saving therapies,” he said in a panel discussion of the results.

Patiromer’s impact on longer-term outcomes is the focus of DIAMOND, a phase 3, randomized, placebo controlled trial that is currently recruiting. DIAMOND will determine whether giving patiromer to patients who developed hyperkalemia on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors decreases cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations, by virtue of enabling continued RAAS inhibitor use.

Funding for AMBER came from Relypsa, which markets patiromer (Veltassa). Dr. Williams reported consulting for Relypsa during the conduct of the study, along with disclosures outside the scope of the AMBER study (Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vascular Dynamics).

SOURCE: Williams B. HFSA 2019.

The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.

The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).

The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.

“[Dapagliflozin] is the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”


In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.

[email protected]

The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.

The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).

The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.

“[Dapagliflozin] is the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”


In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.

[email protected]

The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.

The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).

The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.

“[Dapagliflozin] is the first SGLT2 inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”


In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Physicians and patients both overestimate control of severe asthma, according to an observational study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

More than half (53%) of cases physicians rated as controlled were actually uncontrolled according to the Asthma Control Test (ACT), and 30% of patients who considered their asthma controlled actually had uncontrolled asthma according to the ACT.

Reynold A. Panettieri Jr., MD, of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The findings are from the CHRONICLE study, an ongoing observational study of adults with severe asthma who are being treated by U.S. allergists or pulmonologists. The study enrolled 796 patients from Feb. 2018 to Feb. 2019, and 482 of them were evaluable because they completed the necessary surveys.

The patients’ median age at enrollment was 55 years, and 68% of patients were female. Most were white (82%), 12% were black, 6% were an “other” race, and 7% had Hispanic ethnicity. The median body mass index was 31 kg/m².

Patients received care from an allergist (49%), a pulmonologist (38%), or both (13%). Patients were treated with biologics (n = 370), maintenance systemic corticosteroids (n = 64), or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers (n = 90).

At patient enrollment, physicians reported their assessment of patients’ asthma control and completed the 5-point Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The physicians’ assessments of patients were informed by patients’ verbal reports (50%), lung function testing (44%), in-office ACT (41%), and recent exacerbations (39%).

Patients also completed the ACT and GETE online at the time of enrollment. Neither patients nor physicians were privy to the other group’s responses.

Overall, physicians said 279 patients had controlled asthma. However, according to the ACT, 27% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 26% were not well controlled, and 47% were well controlled.

“So [when] we as a provider say the patient’s controlled, we’re wrong half the time,” Dr. Panettieri said.

However, physicians were more accurate when deeming patients’ asthma uncontrolled. Physicians said 201 cases of asthma were uncontrolled, and the ACT said 64% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 22% were not well controlled, and 13% were well controlled.

Compared with the physicians’ results, the patients’ reports were more in line with ACT results. However, the patients still overestimated control.

In all, 222 patients said their asthma was controlled. According to the ACT, 70% of these cases were well controlled, 23% were not well controlled, and 7% were very poorly controlled.

Patients were even more accurate when deeming their asthma uncontrolled. A total of 258 patients said their asthma was uncontrolled. According to the ACT, 74% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 25% were not well controlled, and 1% were well controlled.

“About 99% of the time, when a patient tells you they’re uncontrolled, they’re uncontrolled by the ACT,” Dr. Panettieri said.

Though patients were fairly accurate when assessing asthma control, they were less accurate when gauging treatment effectiveness. A majority of patients overestimated the effectiveness of treatment.

There were 124 patients who did not have any improvement after treatment, according to physicians. Although 23% of the patients concurred with this assessment, 77% said they did experience some improvement.

On the other hand, there were 355 patients who had some improvement after treatment according to physicians, and most of these patients (96%) agreed that they had some improvement.

Dr. Panettieri said these results support use of the ACT and similar tools. When using these tools isn’t feasible, Dr. Panettieri recommends simply asking patients how they are feeling. However, he said, providers should not rely on a patient’s report of treatment effectiveness to assess asthma control.

This study is supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Panettieri disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Panettieri R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.272.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Physicians and patients both overestimate control of severe asthma, according to an observational study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

More than half (53%) of cases physicians rated as controlled were actually uncontrolled according to the Asthma Control Test (ACT), and 30% of patients who considered their asthma controlled actually had uncontrolled asthma according to the ACT.

Reynold A. Panettieri Jr., MD, of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The findings are from the CHRONICLE study, an ongoing observational study of adults with severe asthma who are being treated by U.S. allergists or pulmonologists. The study enrolled 796 patients from Feb. 2018 to Feb. 2019, and 482 of them were evaluable because they completed the necessary surveys.

The patients’ median age at enrollment was 55 years, and 68% of patients were female. Most were white (82%), 12% were black, 6% were an “other” race, and 7% had Hispanic ethnicity. The median body mass index was 31 kg/m².

Patients received care from an allergist (49%), a pulmonologist (38%), or both (13%). Patients were treated with biologics (n = 370), maintenance systemic corticosteroids (n = 64), or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers (n = 90).

At patient enrollment, physicians reported their assessment of patients’ asthma control and completed the 5-point Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The physicians’ assessments of patients were informed by patients’ verbal reports (50%), lung function testing (44%), in-office ACT (41%), and recent exacerbations (39%).

Patients also completed the ACT and GETE online at the time of enrollment. Neither patients nor physicians were privy to the other group’s responses.

Overall, physicians said 279 patients had controlled asthma. However, according to the ACT, 27% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 26% were not well controlled, and 47% were well controlled.

“So [when] we as a provider say the patient’s controlled, we’re wrong half the time,” Dr. Panettieri said.

However, physicians were more accurate when deeming patients’ asthma uncontrolled. Physicians said 201 cases of asthma were uncontrolled, and the ACT said 64% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 22% were not well controlled, and 13% were well controlled.

Compared with the physicians’ results, the patients’ reports were more in line with ACT results. However, the patients still overestimated control.

In all, 222 patients said their asthma was controlled. According to the ACT, 70% of these cases were well controlled, 23% were not well controlled, and 7% were very poorly controlled.

Patients were even more accurate when deeming their asthma uncontrolled. A total of 258 patients said their asthma was uncontrolled. According to the ACT, 74% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 25% were not well controlled, and 1% were well controlled.

“About 99% of the time, when a patient tells you they’re uncontrolled, they’re uncontrolled by the ACT,” Dr. Panettieri said.

Though patients were fairly accurate when assessing asthma control, they were less accurate when gauging treatment effectiveness. A majority of patients overestimated the effectiveness of treatment.

There were 124 patients who did not have any improvement after treatment, according to physicians. Although 23% of the patients concurred with this assessment, 77% said they did experience some improvement.

On the other hand, there were 355 patients who had some improvement after treatment according to physicians, and most of these patients (96%) agreed that they had some improvement.

Dr. Panettieri said these results support use of the ACT and similar tools. When using these tools isn’t feasible, Dr. Panettieri recommends simply asking patients how they are feeling. However, he said, providers should not rely on a patient’s report of treatment effectiveness to assess asthma control.

This study is supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Panettieri disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Panettieri R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.272.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Physicians and patients both overestimate control of severe asthma, according to an observational study.

Jennifer Smith/MDedge News

More than half (53%) of cases physicians rated as controlled were actually uncontrolled according to the Asthma Control Test (ACT), and 30% of patients who considered their asthma controlled actually had uncontrolled asthma according to the ACT.

Reynold A. Panettieri Jr., MD, of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., presented these findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The findings are from the CHRONICLE study, an ongoing observational study of adults with severe asthma who are being treated by U.S. allergists or pulmonologists. The study enrolled 796 patients from Feb. 2018 to Feb. 2019, and 482 of them were evaluable because they completed the necessary surveys.

The patients’ median age at enrollment was 55 years, and 68% of patients were female. Most were white (82%), 12% were black, 6% were an “other” race, and 7% had Hispanic ethnicity. The median body mass index was 31 kg/m².

Patients received care from an allergist (49%), a pulmonologist (38%), or both (13%). Patients were treated with biologics (n = 370), maintenance systemic corticosteroids (n = 64), or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers (n = 90).

At patient enrollment, physicians reported their assessment of patients’ asthma control and completed the 5-point Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). The physicians’ assessments of patients were informed by patients’ verbal reports (50%), lung function testing (44%), in-office ACT (41%), and recent exacerbations (39%).

Patients also completed the ACT and GETE online at the time of enrollment. Neither patients nor physicians were privy to the other group’s responses.

Overall, physicians said 279 patients had controlled asthma. However, according to the ACT, 27% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 26% were not well controlled, and 47% were well controlled.

“So [when] we as a provider say the patient’s controlled, we’re wrong half the time,” Dr. Panettieri said.

However, physicians were more accurate when deeming patients’ asthma uncontrolled. Physicians said 201 cases of asthma were uncontrolled, and the ACT said 64% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 22% were not well controlled, and 13% were well controlled.

Compared with the physicians’ results, the patients’ reports were more in line with ACT results. However, the patients still overestimated control.

In all, 222 patients said their asthma was controlled. According to the ACT, 70% of these cases were well controlled, 23% were not well controlled, and 7% were very poorly controlled.

Patients were even more accurate when deeming their asthma uncontrolled. A total of 258 patients said their asthma was uncontrolled. According to the ACT, 74% of these cases were very poorly controlled, 25% were not well controlled, and 1% were well controlled.

“About 99% of the time, when a patient tells you they’re uncontrolled, they’re uncontrolled by the ACT,” Dr. Panettieri said.

Though patients were fairly accurate when assessing asthma control, they were less accurate when gauging treatment effectiveness. A majority of patients overestimated the effectiveness of treatment.

There were 124 patients who did not have any improvement after treatment, according to physicians. Although 23% of the patients concurred with this assessment, 77% said they did experience some improvement.

On the other hand, there were 355 patients who had some improvement after treatment according to physicians, and most of these patients (96%) agreed that they had some improvement.

Dr. Panettieri said these results support use of the ACT and similar tools. When using these tools isn’t feasible, Dr. Panettieri recommends simply asking patients how they are feeling. However, he said, providers should not rely on a patient’s report of treatment effectiveness to assess asthma control.

This study is supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Panettieri disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Panettieri R et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi. 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.272.
 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in adults aged 18 years and older, according to a release from Janssen. This is the human interleukin-12 and IL-23 antagonist’s fourth indication since it was first approved by the FDA in 2009.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is based on findings from the phase 3 UNIFI clinical trial, which achieved its primary endpoint of clinical remission over the course of both induction and maintenance. The 8-week induction study saw 19% of patients achieve clinical remission and 58% demonstrating clinical response; at the 1 year mark, after 44 weeks of maintenance therapy, 43% of patients were in clinical remission without steroids. The trial also assessed a novel histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement endpoint that examined cellular improvement through both histologic examination and images observed during colonoscopy; 17% of treated patients achieved this endpoint at week 8, and 44% had by 1 year.

“The FDA approval of Stelara for [ulcerative colitis] represents an exciting milestone, offering patients a new option that has demonstrated improvement of the histology and endoscopic appearance of the intestinal lining, while also offering patients the potential for response and remission without the need for steroids,” said William J. Sandborn, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology and professor of medicine at University of California, San Diego, and a study investigator.

Because of ustekinumab’s effects on the immune system, it may increase the risk of serious infection; as such, patients and health care professionals should discuss any signs of infection before initiation and continue discussions afterward. There are also concerns about risks of cancers, serious allergic reactions, and lung inflammation.

Full prescribing information is available on the Janssen website, as is the full press release regarding the approval

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in adults aged 18 years and older, according to a release from Janssen. This is the human interleukin-12 and IL-23 antagonist’s fourth indication since it was first approved by the FDA in 2009.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is based on findings from the phase 3 UNIFI clinical trial, which achieved its primary endpoint of clinical remission over the course of both induction and maintenance. The 8-week induction study saw 19% of patients achieve clinical remission and 58% demonstrating clinical response; at the 1 year mark, after 44 weeks of maintenance therapy, 43% of patients were in clinical remission without steroids. The trial also assessed a novel histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement endpoint that examined cellular improvement through both histologic examination and images observed during colonoscopy; 17% of treated patients achieved this endpoint at week 8, and 44% had by 1 year.

“The FDA approval of Stelara for [ulcerative colitis] represents an exciting milestone, offering patients a new option that has demonstrated improvement of the histology and endoscopic appearance of the intestinal lining, while also offering patients the potential for response and remission without the need for steroids,” said William J. Sandborn, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology and professor of medicine at University of California, San Diego, and a study investigator.

Because of ustekinumab’s effects on the immune system, it may increase the risk of serious infection; as such, patients and health care professionals should discuss any signs of infection before initiation and continue discussions afterward. There are also concerns about risks of cancers, serious allergic reactions, and lung inflammation.

Full prescribing information is available on the Janssen website, as is the full press release regarding the approval

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in adults aged 18 years and older, according to a release from Janssen. This is the human interleukin-12 and IL-23 antagonist’s fourth indication since it was first approved by the FDA in 2009.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval is based on findings from the phase 3 UNIFI clinical trial, which achieved its primary endpoint of clinical remission over the course of both induction and maintenance. The 8-week induction study saw 19% of patients achieve clinical remission and 58% demonstrating clinical response; at the 1 year mark, after 44 weeks of maintenance therapy, 43% of patients were in clinical remission without steroids. The trial also assessed a novel histologic-endoscopic mucosal improvement endpoint that examined cellular improvement through both histologic examination and images observed during colonoscopy; 17% of treated patients achieved this endpoint at week 8, and 44% had by 1 year.

“The FDA approval of Stelara for [ulcerative colitis] represents an exciting milestone, offering patients a new option that has demonstrated improvement of the histology and endoscopic appearance of the intestinal lining, while also offering patients the potential for response and remission without the need for steroids,” said William J. Sandborn, MD, chief of the division of gastroenterology and professor of medicine at University of California, San Diego, and a study investigator.

Because of ustekinumab’s effects on the immune system, it may increase the risk of serious infection; as such, patients and health care professionals should discuss any signs of infection before initiation and continue discussions afterward. There are also concerns about risks of cancers, serious allergic reactions, and lung inflammation.

Full prescribing information is available on the Janssen website, as is the full press release regarding the approval

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – A standardized checklist may help reduce errors and improve common quality measures in critically ill patients, results of a recent retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients suggest.

Use of the checklist was linked to significantly shorter hospital length of stay and ICU length of stay as well as fewer days on a ventilator in the analysis, which was presented here at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. The 10-item standardized checklist covered a variety topics ranging from comfort, prophylaxis, and sedation to infection control and prevention, nutrition, and medication management review.

Although health economics weren’t evaluated in this analysis, changes in those quality measures might also impact the bottom line, according to study coauthor Priscilla Chow, DO, a resident at Suburban Community Hospital in East Norriton, Pa.

“Obviously, if the patient is spending less time in the hospital and fewer days on the ventilator and in the ICU, then we can potentially also be more cost effective in our care,” Dr. Chow said in a podium presentation at the meeting.

The use of checklists to standardize processes and reduce errors is a “relatively simple approach” that was adopted from the airline industry and now has been evaluated in a variety of medical care settings, according to Dr. Chow.

Previous studies have demonstrated that checklist-driven care may reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, central line–associated bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and catheter associated–urinary tract infection.

The present retrospective data analysis by Dr. Chow and colleagues included 200 consecutive patients admitted to the surgical ICU at an urban level 1 trauma center, including 100 patients managed according to the checklist and 100 managed according to standard processes.

Though survival to discharge was comparable between the groups, use of the checklist was associated with a significantly shorter hospital length of stay versus standard care (23.9 vs. 9.5 days). Likewise, the ICU length of stay was shorter in the checklist group (13.0 vs. 6.5 days), and the checklist group had fewer ventilator days (7.7 to 2.8).

Injury Severity Score did not differ between groups, though overall, use of the checklist resulted in more of the underlying topics being addressed in clinical documentation (5.0 vs. 8.7 items).

Dr. Chow and colleagues disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Akella K et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.201.

NEW ORLEANS – A standardized checklist may help reduce errors and improve common quality measures in critically ill patients, results of a recent retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients suggest.

Use of the checklist was linked to significantly shorter hospital length of stay and ICU length of stay as well as fewer days on a ventilator in the analysis, which was presented here at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. The 10-item standardized checklist covered a variety topics ranging from comfort, prophylaxis, and sedation to infection control and prevention, nutrition, and medication management review.

Although health economics weren’t evaluated in this analysis, changes in those quality measures might also impact the bottom line, according to study coauthor Priscilla Chow, DO, a resident at Suburban Community Hospital in East Norriton, Pa.

“Obviously, if the patient is spending less time in the hospital and fewer days on the ventilator and in the ICU, then we can potentially also be more cost effective in our care,” Dr. Chow said in a podium presentation at the meeting.

The use of checklists to standardize processes and reduce errors is a “relatively simple approach” that was adopted from the airline industry and now has been evaluated in a variety of medical care settings, according to Dr. Chow.

Previous studies have demonstrated that checklist-driven care may reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, central line–associated bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and catheter associated–urinary tract infection.

The present retrospective data analysis by Dr. Chow and colleagues included 200 consecutive patients admitted to the surgical ICU at an urban level 1 trauma center, including 100 patients managed according to the checklist and 100 managed according to standard processes.

Though survival to discharge was comparable between the groups, use of the checklist was associated with a significantly shorter hospital length of stay versus standard care (23.9 vs. 9.5 days). Likewise, the ICU length of stay was shorter in the checklist group (13.0 vs. 6.5 days), and the checklist group had fewer ventilator days (7.7 to 2.8).

Injury Severity Score did not differ between groups, though overall, use of the checklist resulted in more of the underlying topics being addressed in clinical documentation (5.0 vs. 8.7 items).

Dr. Chow and colleagues disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Akella K et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.201.

NEW ORLEANS – A standardized checklist may help reduce errors and improve common quality measures in critically ill patients, results of a recent retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients suggest.

Use of the checklist was linked to significantly shorter hospital length of stay and ICU length of stay as well as fewer days on a ventilator in the analysis, which was presented here at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. The 10-item standardized checklist covered a variety topics ranging from comfort, prophylaxis, and sedation to infection control and prevention, nutrition, and medication management review.

Although health economics weren’t evaluated in this analysis, changes in those quality measures might also impact the bottom line, according to study coauthor Priscilla Chow, DO, a resident at Suburban Community Hospital in East Norriton, Pa.

“Obviously, if the patient is spending less time in the hospital and fewer days on the ventilator and in the ICU, then we can potentially also be more cost effective in our care,” Dr. Chow said in a podium presentation at the meeting.

The use of checklists to standardize processes and reduce errors is a “relatively simple approach” that was adopted from the airline industry and now has been evaluated in a variety of medical care settings, according to Dr. Chow.

Previous studies have demonstrated that checklist-driven care may reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, central line–associated bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and catheter associated–urinary tract infection.

The present retrospective data analysis by Dr. Chow and colleagues included 200 consecutive patients admitted to the surgical ICU at an urban level 1 trauma center, including 100 patients managed according to the checklist and 100 managed according to standard processes.

Though survival to discharge was comparable between the groups, use of the checklist was associated with a significantly shorter hospital length of stay versus standard care (23.9 vs. 9.5 days). Likewise, the ICU length of stay was shorter in the checklist group (13.0 vs. 6.5 days), and the checklist group had fewer ventilator days (7.7 to 2.8).

Injury Severity Score did not differ between groups, though overall, use of the checklist resulted in more of the underlying topics being addressed in clinical documentation (5.0 vs. 8.7 items).

Dr. Chow and colleagues disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Akella K et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.201.