User login
Networks at CHEST 2023
CHEST 2023 in Honolulu kicked off for Network Leadership during the Council of Networks meeting.
We congratulated our Network leaders – Margaret Pisani, Council of Networks Vice-chair, who was awarded the Roger C. Bone Memorial Lecture in Critical Care; and Jean Elwing, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network, for being awarded the Distinguished Scientist Honor Lecture in Cardiopulmonary Physiology. CHEST 2023 included excellent educational content by the Networks, including two Network highlights per each of the seven Networks, as well as an Experience CHEST submission from each of the 22 sections.
We also had the opportunity to meet face-to-face at the Network Open Forums, the Network Mixer, and the inaugural Fellow-in-Training Mixer in the Trainee Lounge. We saw a lot of familiar faces at these events, and 182 new individuals also signed up to become Network members.
There will be one final Council of Networks leadership meeting in December prior to our leadership transition in January.
We thank outgoing Network chairs, Dr. Marcos Restrepo of the Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network, Dr. Christopher Carroll of the Critical Care Network, Dr. Debbie Levine of the Diffuse Lung Disease & Lung Transplant Network, and Dr. Carolyn D’Ambrosio of the Sleep Medicine Network, for their leadership and hard work dedicated to the Networks that have greatly benefited from their service.
Cassie Kennedy, MD, FCCP – Chair, Council of Networks
Margaret Pisani, MD, MPH, FCCP – Vice-Chair, Council of Networks
CHEST 2023 in Honolulu kicked off for Network Leadership during the Council of Networks meeting.
We congratulated our Network leaders – Margaret Pisani, Council of Networks Vice-chair, who was awarded the Roger C. Bone Memorial Lecture in Critical Care; and Jean Elwing, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network, for being awarded the Distinguished Scientist Honor Lecture in Cardiopulmonary Physiology. CHEST 2023 included excellent educational content by the Networks, including two Network highlights per each of the seven Networks, as well as an Experience CHEST submission from each of the 22 sections.
We also had the opportunity to meet face-to-face at the Network Open Forums, the Network Mixer, and the inaugural Fellow-in-Training Mixer in the Trainee Lounge. We saw a lot of familiar faces at these events, and 182 new individuals also signed up to become Network members.
There will be one final Council of Networks leadership meeting in December prior to our leadership transition in January.
We thank outgoing Network chairs, Dr. Marcos Restrepo of the Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network, Dr. Christopher Carroll of the Critical Care Network, Dr. Debbie Levine of the Diffuse Lung Disease & Lung Transplant Network, and Dr. Carolyn D’Ambrosio of the Sleep Medicine Network, for their leadership and hard work dedicated to the Networks that have greatly benefited from their service.
Cassie Kennedy, MD, FCCP – Chair, Council of Networks
Margaret Pisani, MD, MPH, FCCP – Vice-Chair, Council of Networks
CHEST 2023 in Honolulu kicked off for Network Leadership during the Council of Networks meeting.
We congratulated our Network leaders – Margaret Pisani, Council of Networks Vice-chair, who was awarded the Roger C. Bone Memorial Lecture in Critical Care; and Jean Elwing, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network, for being awarded the Distinguished Scientist Honor Lecture in Cardiopulmonary Physiology. CHEST 2023 included excellent educational content by the Networks, including two Network highlights per each of the seven Networks, as well as an Experience CHEST submission from each of the 22 sections.
We also had the opportunity to meet face-to-face at the Network Open Forums, the Network Mixer, and the inaugural Fellow-in-Training Mixer in the Trainee Lounge. We saw a lot of familiar faces at these events, and 182 new individuals also signed up to become Network members.
There will be one final Council of Networks leadership meeting in December prior to our leadership transition in January.
We thank outgoing Network chairs, Dr. Marcos Restrepo of the Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network, Dr. Christopher Carroll of the Critical Care Network, Dr. Debbie Levine of the Diffuse Lung Disease & Lung Transplant Network, and Dr. Carolyn D’Ambrosio of the Sleep Medicine Network, for their leadership and hard work dedicated to the Networks that have greatly benefited from their service.
Cassie Kennedy, MD, FCCP – Chair, Council of Networks
Margaret Pisani, MD, MPH, FCCP – Vice-Chair, Council of Networks
The double-edged sword of virtual pulmonary rehabilitation
It offers a comprehensive approach to improving lung health and overall quality of life using a combination of tailored exercise routines, educational sessions, and emotional support. It empowers our patients to better manage their conditions, improve their fitness level, and regain a sense of control over their lives. However, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telemedicine as a method for providing health care (Shaver J. Prim Care. 2022;49[4]:517).
Many patients have welcomed the convenience offered by virtual care, and studies have demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction (Polinski JM, et al. Gen Intern Med. 2016;31[3]:269). Geography also drives telehealth use. In urban areas in the United States, the median travel distance is 7.5 miles one way with a resulting travel time of 3 to 25 minutes. In rural areas, the estimated travel distance is three times as long. Distance and travel time have been recognized as major barriers to attending PR (Keating A, et al. Chron Respir Dis. 2011;8[2]:89).
Access to PR is also hindered by lack of program availability. As of 2019, there were only 831 pulmonary rehab centers in the United States serving roughly 24 million patients with COPD. Only 561 of these centers are certified by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, leaving only one certified center for every 43,000 patients with COPD (Chan L, et al. J Rural Health. 2006;22[2]:140). As such, virtual PR is one option for augmenting availability and accessibility.
While virtual PR programs offer numerous advantages, including accessibility and convenience, there are inherent risks and challenges. There is also concern that they are inferior to in-person PR. They offer less supervision by trained health care professionals and no immediate access to medical assistance. Combined with the absence of real-time monitoring of vitals or symptoms, there may be a higher risk of adverse events despite the incorporation of safety measures. Furthermore, the lack of accountability forces an increased reliance on self-motivation, which may hinder progress (Spruit MA, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188[8]:e13).
Although the digital divide is narrowing rapidly, reliable access to technology, combined with poor internet connections or computer literacy, will prevent adoption by some patients. Even in well-resourced areas, technical issues can disrupt continuity. Finally, virtual PR lacks the intangible benefits from in-person group sessions. Social interactions in this already isolated subset of patients are lost in virtual PR, and the cultivation of motivation and support to seek a common goal goes unrealized.
While these concerns are appreciated, PR is currently highly underutilized and essentially unavailable to most pulmonary patients. As such, further study is needed to shape the future design of quality virtual PR programs. In the March 2023 issue of the journal CHEST, Huynh and colleagues published an observational cohort study comparing virtual with traditional PR programs (Huynh VC, et al. Chest. 2023; Mar;163[3]:529). Of the 554 participants in the study, 171 were enrolled in virtual and 383 to in-person PR. Attendance and drop-out rates did not differ, CAT scores significantly improved in both programs, and there were no adverse events during virtual PR. Participants in the virtual group received a TheraBand and were required to have a sturdy chair, three large step-lengths of empty space surrounding their chair, and access to internet/Zoom. They had one-on-one Zoom meetings but relied mostly on staff-made or online videos. These results replicate past investigations that have demonstrated low adverse event rates, positive overall patient satisfaction, and noninferiority in patient-centered outcomes with PR. The total volume of data remains limited though (Cox NS, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;Issue 1;Art No: CD013040).
PR is an essential resource for the management of chronic lung diseases. Given existing barriers and the growing number of eligible patients, we must embrace alternative delivery strategies, all the while ensuring that a quality and useful product is deployed (Rochester CL, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192[11]:1373). Additional study is needed to standardize and validate the implementation of virtual PR. Ultimately, virtual and alternative methods of care delivery may help optimize outcomes for our patients where more traditional methods fall short.
The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government. Dr. Cagle and Dr. Gartman are with the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Providence VA Medical Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine. Providence, R.I.
It offers a comprehensive approach to improving lung health and overall quality of life using a combination of tailored exercise routines, educational sessions, and emotional support. It empowers our patients to better manage their conditions, improve their fitness level, and regain a sense of control over their lives. However, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telemedicine as a method for providing health care (Shaver J. Prim Care. 2022;49[4]:517).
Many patients have welcomed the convenience offered by virtual care, and studies have demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction (Polinski JM, et al. Gen Intern Med. 2016;31[3]:269). Geography also drives telehealth use. In urban areas in the United States, the median travel distance is 7.5 miles one way with a resulting travel time of 3 to 25 minutes. In rural areas, the estimated travel distance is three times as long. Distance and travel time have been recognized as major barriers to attending PR (Keating A, et al. Chron Respir Dis. 2011;8[2]:89).
Access to PR is also hindered by lack of program availability. As of 2019, there were only 831 pulmonary rehab centers in the United States serving roughly 24 million patients with COPD. Only 561 of these centers are certified by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, leaving only one certified center for every 43,000 patients with COPD (Chan L, et al. J Rural Health. 2006;22[2]:140). As such, virtual PR is one option for augmenting availability and accessibility.
While virtual PR programs offer numerous advantages, including accessibility and convenience, there are inherent risks and challenges. There is also concern that they are inferior to in-person PR. They offer less supervision by trained health care professionals and no immediate access to medical assistance. Combined with the absence of real-time monitoring of vitals or symptoms, there may be a higher risk of adverse events despite the incorporation of safety measures. Furthermore, the lack of accountability forces an increased reliance on self-motivation, which may hinder progress (Spruit MA, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188[8]:e13).
Although the digital divide is narrowing rapidly, reliable access to technology, combined with poor internet connections or computer literacy, will prevent adoption by some patients. Even in well-resourced areas, technical issues can disrupt continuity. Finally, virtual PR lacks the intangible benefits from in-person group sessions. Social interactions in this already isolated subset of patients are lost in virtual PR, and the cultivation of motivation and support to seek a common goal goes unrealized.
While these concerns are appreciated, PR is currently highly underutilized and essentially unavailable to most pulmonary patients. As such, further study is needed to shape the future design of quality virtual PR programs. In the March 2023 issue of the journal CHEST, Huynh and colleagues published an observational cohort study comparing virtual with traditional PR programs (Huynh VC, et al. Chest. 2023; Mar;163[3]:529). Of the 554 participants in the study, 171 were enrolled in virtual and 383 to in-person PR. Attendance and drop-out rates did not differ, CAT scores significantly improved in both programs, and there were no adverse events during virtual PR. Participants in the virtual group received a TheraBand and were required to have a sturdy chair, three large step-lengths of empty space surrounding their chair, and access to internet/Zoom. They had one-on-one Zoom meetings but relied mostly on staff-made or online videos. These results replicate past investigations that have demonstrated low adverse event rates, positive overall patient satisfaction, and noninferiority in patient-centered outcomes with PR. The total volume of data remains limited though (Cox NS, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;Issue 1;Art No: CD013040).
PR is an essential resource for the management of chronic lung diseases. Given existing barriers and the growing number of eligible patients, we must embrace alternative delivery strategies, all the while ensuring that a quality and useful product is deployed (Rochester CL, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192[11]:1373). Additional study is needed to standardize and validate the implementation of virtual PR. Ultimately, virtual and alternative methods of care delivery may help optimize outcomes for our patients where more traditional methods fall short.
The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government. Dr. Cagle and Dr. Gartman are with the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Providence VA Medical Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine. Providence, R.I.
It offers a comprehensive approach to improving lung health and overall quality of life using a combination of tailored exercise routines, educational sessions, and emotional support. It empowers our patients to better manage their conditions, improve their fitness level, and regain a sense of control over their lives. However, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telemedicine as a method for providing health care (Shaver J. Prim Care. 2022;49[4]:517).
Many patients have welcomed the convenience offered by virtual care, and studies have demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction (Polinski JM, et al. Gen Intern Med. 2016;31[3]:269). Geography also drives telehealth use. In urban areas in the United States, the median travel distance is 7.5 miles one way with a resulting travel time of 3 to 25 minutes. In rural areas, the estimated travel distance is three times as long. Distance and travel time have been recognized as major barriers to attending PR (Keating A, et al. Chron Respir Dis. 2011;8[2]:89).
Access to PR is also hindered by lack of program availability. As of 2019, there were only 831 pulmonary rehab centers in the United States serving roughly 24 million patients with COPD. Only 561 of these centers are certified by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, leaving only one certified center for every 43,000 patients with COPD (Chan L, et al. J Rural Health. 2006;22[2]:140). As such, virtual PR is one option for augmenting availability and accessibility.
While virtual PR programs offer numerous advantages, including accessibility and convenience, there are inherent risks and challenges. There is also concern that they are inferior to in-person PR. They offer less supervision by trained health care professionals and no immediate access to medical assistance. Combined with the absence of real-time monitoring of vitals or symptoms, there may be a higher risk of adverse events despite the incorporation of safety measures. Furthermore, the lack of accountability forces an increased reliance on self-motivation, which may hinder progress (Spruit MA, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188[8]:e13).
Although the digital divide is narrowing rapidly, reliable access to technology, combined with poor internet connections or computer literacy, will prevent adoption by some patients. Even in well-resourced areas, technical issues can disrupt continuity. Finally, virtual PR lacks the intangible benefits from in-person group sessions. Social interactions in this already isolated subset of patients are lost in virtual PR, and the cultivation of motivation and support to seek a common goal goes unrealized.
While these concerns are appreciated, PR is currently highly underutilized and essentially unavailable to most pulmonary patients. As such, further study is needed to shape the future design of quality virtual PR programs. In the March 2023 issue of the journal CHEST, Huynh and colleagues published an observational cohort study comparing virtual with traditional PR programs (Huynh VC, et al. Chest. 2023; Mar;163[3]:529). Of the 554 participants in the study, 171 were enrolled in virtual and 383 to in-person PR. Attendance and drop-out rates did not differ, CAT scores significantly improved in both programs, and there were no adverse events during virtual PR. Participants in the virtual group received a TheraBand and were required to have a sturdy chair, three large step-lengths of empty space surrounding their chair, and access to internet/Zoom. They had one-on-one Zoom meetings but relied mostly on staff-made or online videos. These results replicate past investigations that have demonstrated low adverse event rates, positive overall patient satisfaction, and noninferiority in patient-centered outcomes with PR. The total volume of data remains limited though (Cox NS, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;Issue 1;Art No: CD013040).
PR is an essential resource for the management of chronic lung diseases. Given existing barriers and the growing number of eligible patients, we must embrace alternative delivery strategies, all the while ensuring that a quality and useful product is deployed (Rochester CL, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192[11]:1373). Additional study is needed to standardize and validate the implementation of virtual PR. Ultimately, virtual and alternative methods of care delivery may help optimize outcomes for our patients where more traditional methods fall short.
The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government. Dr. Cagle and Dr. Gartman are with the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Providence VA Medical Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine. Providence, R.I.
Thoracic ultrasound advancements for the assessment and management of pleural disorders
Thoracic Oncology Network
Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section
Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) is standard of care for the detection of pleural effusion and guidance of pleural procedures. Recent advancements have further expanded the utility of TUS. TUS has better diagnostic performance than CT scan or chest radiograph for predicting complicated parapneumonic effusion (Svigals PZ, et al. Thorax. 2017;72[1]:94-5). This is likely because of better visualization of septation, but there are still limitations. In a study of 300 pleural ultrasounds, TUS was found to be inadequately reliable in the diagnosis of transudative pleural effusion as 56% of anechoic effusions were exudative, but complex appearing pleural effusion on TUS was found to have high predictive value for the diagnosis of exudative pleural effusion (Shkolnik B, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:692-7).
TUS may diagnose nonexpendable lung prior to drainage in malignant pleural effusions. Using M-mode to assess lung motion and speckled tracking for the assessment of lung stain, blunted cardio-phasic response of the lung was highly specific for the diagnosis of nonexpandable lung (Salamonsen MR, et al. Chest. 2014;146[5]:1286-93). TUS can also be used to assess the success of pleurodesis as measured by the adherence score (abolishment of pleural sliding). TUS guided pleurodesis approach was shown to decrease the hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion (Psallidas I, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[2]:139-48). Point-of-care TUS is evolving, and adapted use focusing on patient-centered outcomes will further enhance the utility of this indispensable tool.
Amit Chopra, MD, FCCP
Nicholas Villalobos, MD
Thoracic Oncology Network
Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section
Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) is standard of care for the detection of pleural effusion and guidance of pleural procedures. Recent advancements have further expanded the utility of TUS. TUS has better diagnostic performance than CT scan or chest radiograph for predicting complicated parapneumonic effusion (Svigals PZ, et al. Thorax. 2017;72[1]:94-5). This is likely because of better visualization of septation, but there are still limitations. In a study of 300 pleural ultrasounds, TUS was found to be inadequately reliable in the diagnosis of transudative pleural effusion as 56% of anechoic effusions were exudative, but complex appearing pleural effusion on TUS was found to have high predictive value for the diagnosis of exudative pleural effusion (Shkolnik B, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:692-7).
TUS may diagnose nonexpendable lung prior to drainage in malignant pleural effusions. Using M-mode to assess lung motion and speckled tracking for the assessment of lung stain, blunted cardio-phasic response of the lung was highly specific for the diagnosis of nonexpandable lung (Salamonsen MR, et al. Chest. 2014;146[5]:1286-93). TUS can also be used to assess the success of pleurodesis as measured by the adherence score (abolishment of pleural sliding). TUS guided pleurodesis approach was shown to decrease the hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion (Psallidas I, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[2]:139-48). Point-of-care TUS is evolving, and adapted use focusing on patient-centered outcomes will further enhance the utility of this indispensable tool.
Amit Chopra, MD, FCCP
Nicholas Villalobos, MD
Thoracic Oncology Network
Ultrasound & Chest Imaging Section
Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) is standard of care for the detection of pleural effusion and guidance of pleural procedures. Recent advancements have further expanded the utility of TUS. TUS has better diagnostic performance than CT scan or chest radiograph for predicting complicated parapneumonic effusion (Svigals PZ, et al. Thorax. 2017;72[1]:94-5). This is likely because of better visualization of septation, but there are still limitations. In a study of 300 pleural ultrasounds, TUS was found to be inadequately reliable in the diagnosis of transudative pleural effusion as 56% of anechoic effusions were exudative, but complex appearing pleural effusion on TUS was found to have high predictive value for the diagnosis of exudative pleural effusion (Shkolnik B, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:692-7).
TUS may diagnose nonexpendable lung prior to drainage in malignant pleural effusions. Using M-mode to assess lung motion and speckled tracking for the assessment of lung stain, blunted cardio-phasic response of the lung was highly specific for the diagnosis of nonexpandable lung (Salamonsen MR, et al. Chest. 2014;146[5]:1286-93). TUS can also be used to assess the success of pleurodesis as measured by the adherence score (abolishment of pleural sliding). TUS guided pleurodesis approach was shown to decrease the hospital length of stay in patients undergoing pleurodesis for malignant pleural effusion (Psallidas I, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10[2]:139-48). Point-of-care TUS is evolving, and adapted use focusing on patient-centered outcomes will further enhance the utility of this indispensable tool.
Amit Chopra, MD, FCCP
Nicholas Villalobos, MD
Seasonal variations in sleep architecture
Sleep Network
Non-Respiratory Sleep Section
Do you feel like you sleep worse in the spring and have more difficulty keeping your schedule on track? There are new data to support the way you feel based on our deeper understanding of seasonal variations in sleep architecture.
Patients in a recent study had 43 minutes less total sleep time and approximately 30 less minutes of REM sleep in the late spring when compared with the winter (Seidler A, et al. Front Neurosci. 2023 Feb 17:17:1105233). Accumulation of decreased sleep time and quality can lead to the sensation of ‘running-on-empty’ by early spring.
Experts believe these seasonal variations in sleep architecture are mainly secondary to circadian shifts. Our social synchronization overrides our natural alignment with daylight patterns and can lead to known consequences of circadian misalignment. Common consequences of poor circadian alignment include worsening sleep disturbances, cognitive impairments, occupational mistakes, and metabolic and mental health disturbances (Schmal C, et al. Front Physiol. 2020 Apr 28:11:334; Boivin D, et al. J Biol Rhythms. 2022 Feb;37[1]:3-28).
The effects of circadian misalignment can be particularly dramatic in children receiving less than their age-appropriate hours of sleep. Children with sleep deprivation are at increased risk of attention, behavior, and learning problems (Paruthi S, et al. J Clinl Sleep Med. 2016;12[6]:785-6).
To improve circadian alignment in spring, it is recommended to achieve morning bright light exposure and perform regular exercise. The elimination of daylight savings time to a consensus of permanent standard time will optimize circadian alignment.
Christopher Izzo, DO – Section Fellow-in-Training
William Healy, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Mariam Louis, MD – Section Chair
Sleep Network
Non-Respiratory Sleep Section
Do you feel like you sleep worse in the spring and have more difficulty keeping your schedule on track? There are new data to support the way you feel based on our deeper understanding of seasonal variations in sleep architecture.
Patients in a recent study had 43 minutes less total sleep time and approximately 30 less minutes of REM sleep in the late spring when compared with the winter (Seidler A, et al. Front Neurosci. 2023 Feb 17:17:1105233). Accumulation of decreased sleep time and quality can lead to the sensation of ‘running-on-empty’ by early spring.
Experts believe these seasonal variations in sleep architecture are mainly secondary to circadian shifts. Our social synchronization overrides our natural alignment with daylight patterns and can lead to known consequences of circadian misalignment. Common consequences of poor circadian alignment include worsening sleep disturbances, cognitive impairments, occupational mistakes, and metabolic and mental health disturbances (Schmal C, et al. Front Physiol. 2020 Apr 28:11:334; Boivin D, et al. J Biol Rhythms. 2022 Feb;37[1]:3-28).
The effects of circadian misalignment can be particularly dramatic in children receiving less than their age-appropriate hours of sleep. Children with sleep deprivation are at increased risk of attention, behavior, and learning problems (Paruthi S, et al. J Clinl Sleep Med. 2016;12[6]:785-6).
To improve circadian alignment in spring, it is recommended to achieve morning bright light exposure and perform regular exercise. The elimination of daylight savings time to a consensus of permanent standard time will optimize circadian alignment.
Christopher Izzo, DO – Section Fellow-in-Training
William Healy, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Mariam Louis, MD – Section Chair
Sleep Network
Non-Respiratory Sleep Section
Do you feel like you sleep worse in the spring and have more difficulty keeping your schedule on track? There are new data to support the way you feel based on our deeper understanding of seasonal variations in sleep architecture.
Patients in a recent study had 43 minutes less total sleep time and approximately 30 less minutes of REM sleep in the late spring when compared with the winter (Seidler A, et al. Front Neurosci. 2023 Feb 17:17:1105233). Accumulation of decreased sleep time and quality can lead to the sensation of ‘running-on-empty’ by early spring.
Experts believe these seasonal variations in sleep architecture are mainly secondary to circadian shifts. Our social synchronization overrides our natural alignment with daylight patterns and can lead to known consequences of circadian misalignment. Common consequences of poor circadian alignment include worsening sleep disturbances, cognitive impairments, occupational mistakes, and metabolic and mental health disturbances (Schmal C, et al. Front Physiol. 2020 Apr 28:11:334; Boivin D, et al. J Biol Rhythms. 2022 Feb;37[1]:3-28).
The effects of circadian misalignment can be particularly dramatic in children receiving less than their age-appropriate hours of sleep. Children with sleep deprivation are at increased risk of attention, behavior, and learning problems (Paruthi S, et al. J Clinl Sleep Med. 2016;12[6]:785-6).
To improve circadian alignment in spring, it is recommended to achieve morning bright light exposure and perform regular exercise. The elimination of daylight savings time to a consensus of permanent standard time will optimize circadian alignment.
Christopher Izzo, DO – Section Fellow-in-Training
William Healy, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Mariam Louis, MD – Section Chair
The crucial roles of inpatient vaccinations in preventing respiratory viral illnesses
Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network
Disaster Response & Global Health Section
In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).
Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.
Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network
Disaster Response & Global Health Section
In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).
Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.
Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network
Disaster Response & Global Health Section
In recent years, the importance of inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses has become increasingly clear. As the world grapples with the ever-present threat of contagious diseases like influenza, COVID-19, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and other respiratory viruses, the significance of vaccinating individuals during hospital stays cannot be overstated. Notably, the rates of inpatient vaccinations have significantly increased in recent years.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the success of various strategies to boost vaccine delivery to hospitalized patients. These strategies include personalized catch-up plans, electronic medical record (EMR) prompts, visual reminders, staff education and training, and allowing nonphysicians to screen and order vaccines. The implementation of nonphysician protocols has proven effective in increasing inpatient influenza vaccinations in multiple studies (Mihalek AJ, et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2021 Dec 1. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2021-005924; Skull S, et al. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999;35[5]:472).
Optimizing the delivery of vaccines to hospitalized patients carries substantial public health benefits. This is especially vital for patients who face challenges accessing primary care and during periods of health care systems disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In conclusion, inpatient vaccinations against respiratory viral illnesses are supported by a growing body of evidence. These vaccinations not only prevent disease transmission within health care facilities but also protect vulnerable patients, alleviate the burden on health care systems and with the recent approval of the RSV vaccine, we have a new tool to combat respiratory viruses effectively. As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by respiratory viruses, prioritizing inpatient vaccinations is a wise and necessary step toward a healthier, safer future for all.
Stella Ogake, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Update on seasonal flu, RSV infections, and vaccines
Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network
Chest Infections Section
November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.
In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.
John Huston, MD
Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training
Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large
Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network
Chest Infections Section
November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.
In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.
John Huston, MD
Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training
Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large
Chest Infections & Disaster Response Network
Chest Infections Section
November 12 marks World Pneumonia Day, and while it has long been recognized that viruses play a significant role in causing pneumonia, awareness has surged due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, with the advent of rapid molecular diagnostics, the contribution of respiratory viral pathogens in pneumonia has become clearer (Seema J, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 30;373[5]:415-27). Despite COVID-19 remaining a substantial threat, infection rates with other respiratory viruses are on the rise and will continue to increase during colder months. Here, we will provide an update on influenza and RSV:
Currently, influenza activity in the United States is low (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. FluView. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm). Vaccination coverage for US adults during the previous influenza season stood at 47% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FluVaxView Vaccination Dashboard. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/dashboard/vaccination-dashboard.html). Hospitalizations were estimated to range between 300,000 and 650,000, a significant increase from the 2021-2022 season, which saw about 100,000 hospitalizations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preliminary In-Season Estimates of Influenza Burden. 2023 Oct 4. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-estimates.htm). Data from the Southern Hemisphere’s recent influenza season indicates a 52% vaccine efficacy in preventing influenza-associated hospitalizations (Fowlkes AL, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Sep 15;72[37]:1010-5). Influenza hospitalization rates are likely returning to higher pre-COVID-19 levels.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a seasonal pathogen causing substantial morbidity and mortality. This year, two new vaccines have become available to prevent RSV-associated lower respiratory tract diseases, boasting a vaccine effectiveness of over 80% for the first and over 70% for the second season post-administration (Melgar M, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Jul 21;72[29]:793-801). The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a single dose for adults over 60, and one vaccine is FDA-approved for pregnant individuals (32-36 weeks gestation) to provide passive infant immunity.
In summary, both the current influenza vaccine and the new RSV vaccines demonstrate effectiveness and are strongly recommended, alongside an updated COVID-19 vaccine.
John Huston, MD
Jamie Felzer, MD, MPH – Section Fellow-in-Training
Charles Dela Cruz, MD – Section Member-at-Large
Sebastian Kurz, MD, FCCP – Network Member-at-Large
New pharmacological interventions for residual excessive daytime sleepiness in OSA
Residual excessive daytime sleepiness (REDS) is defined as the urge to sleep during the day despite an intention to remain alert after optimal treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This is a distressing outcome with an estimated prevalence of 9% to 22% among patients with OSA (Pépin JL, et al. Eur Respir J. 2009;33[5]:1062). The pathophysiology of the condition is complex, and experimental studies conducted on animal models have demonstrated that chronic sleep fragmentation and chronic intermittent hypoxia can result in detrimental effects on wake-promoting neurons. Additionally, there is evidence of heightened oxidative stress and alterations in melatonin secretion, with the severity and duration of the disease playing a significant role in the manifestation of these effects (Javaheri S, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:776). It is considered a diagnosis of exclusion, with the assessment being mostly subjective. Prior to diagnosing REDS, it is crucial to optimize positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy and nocturnal ventilation, ensure sufficient adherence to sleep hygiene practices, and exclude the presence of other sleep disorders. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score is widely utilized as a primary clinical tool in the assessment of sleepiness. To enhance the precision of this score, it is advantageous to take input from both family members and friends. Additional objective assessments that could be considered include the utilization of the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) or the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT).
Off-label use of traditional central nervous system stimulants, like amphetamine or methylphenidate, in these patients is almost extinct. The potential for abuse and negative consequences outweighs the potential benefits. FDA-approved medications for treatment of REDS in OSA include modafinil, armodafinil, and solriamfetol in the United States.
Historically, modafinil and armodafinil are the first-line and most commonly used wake-promoting agents. Both agents bind to the dopamine transporter and inhibit dopamine reuptake. They have demonstrated efficacy in reducing EDS and improving wakefulness in patients with OSA treated with CPAP. A meta-analysis of 10 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of modafinil and armodafinil found that they were better than placebo by 2.2 points on the ESS score and 3 minutes on the MWT (Maintenance of Wakefulness Test) (Chapman JL, et al. Eur Respir J. 2016;47[5]:1420). Both drugs have common adverse effects of headache, nausea, nervousness, insomnia, dizziness, rhinitis, and diarrhea. Drug interaction with CYP3A4/5 substrates and oral contraceptives is a concern with these medications. In 2010, the European Medicines Agency restricted the use of modafinil only to patients with narcolepsy, considering its cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks (European Medicines Agency website; press release, July 22, 2010).
Solriamfetol is the newest medication being utilized for EDS in OSA and is approved in both the United States and Europe for this indication. It is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor with a simultaneous effect on both transporters. It has been effective in improving wakefulness and reducing sleepiness in patients with residual OSA. In the landmark trial TONES 3, dose-dependent (37.5, 75, 150, and 300 mg/day) effects were observed, with improvements in ESS scores of –1.9 to –4.7 points and sleep latency in MWT by 4.5 to 12.8 minutes (Schweitzer PK, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[11]:1421). The current recommended dosing for REDS in OSA is to start with the lowest dose of 37.5 mg/day and increase to the maximum dose of 150 mg/day by titrating up every 3 days if needed. A recent meta-analysis showed an indirect treatment comparison between efficacy and safety among the medications solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil (Ronnebaum S, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17[12]:2543). Six parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trials were looked at. The ESS score, MWT20 sleep latency, and CGI-C (Clinical Global Impression of Change) all got better in comparison to the placebo. Relative to the comparators and placebo at 12 weeks, solriamfetol at 150 mg and 300 mg had the highest degree of improvement in all the outcomes studied. Common adverse effects of solriamfetol include headache, nausea, decreased appetite, insomnia, dry mouth, anxiety, and minimal increase in blood pressure and heart rate. The adverse effects in terms of blood pressure and heart rate change have a dose-dependent relationship, and serial vitals monitoring is recommended for patients every 6 months to a year. This medication is contraindicated in patients receiving concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) or within 14 days following discontinuation of an MAOI because of the risk of hypertensive reactions. Solriamfetol is renally excreted, so dose adjustment is needed in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. It is not recommended for use in end-stage renal disease (eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2) (SUNOSI. Full prescribing information. Axsome; revised 06/2023. https://www.sunosihcp.com/assets/files/sunosi.en.uspi.pdf. Accessed: Sept 24, 2023). Solriamfetol demonstrates a comparatively shorter half-life when compared with traditional pharmaceuticals like modafinil and armodafinil, implying the possibility of a decreased duration of its effects. The effect in question may exhibit interpersonal diversity in its impact on quality of life when applied in a therapeutic setting.
Pitolisant is another potential medication to treat REDS in patients with OSA. While only approved for treating EDS and cataplexy in adult US patients with narcolepsy, it is currently approved for REDS in OSA in Europe (Ozawade. European Medicines Agency. Last updated 12/05/2022. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/ozawade#product-information-section. Accessed: Oct 2, 2023). It is a selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist and an inverse agonist of the presynaptic H3 receptor. The fact that this medication is not scheduled and has a negligible or nonexistent risk of abuse is one of its advantages. It is dosed once daily, and the most frequent adverse effects include headaches and insomnia. A prolonged QT interval was observed in a few patients; caution is needed with concomitant use of other medications with known similar effects. Dosage modification is recommended in patients with moderate hepatic impairment and moderate to severe renal impairment. Drug interactions are also observed with the concomitant use of CYP2D6 inhibitors and CYP3A4 inducers. Pitolisant may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception, including up to 21 days after its discontinuation (WAKIX. Full prescribing information. Harmony biosciences; revised 12/2022.https://wakixhcp.com/pdf/wakix-tablets-pi.pdf. Accessed: Sept 24, 2023).
Dr. Mechineni is Sleep Attending Physician, Ascension Illinois, Alexian Brothers Medical Center, Chicago. Dr. Sahni is Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, Associate Program Director, Sleep Medicine Fellowship; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Residual excessive daytime sleepiness (REDS) is defined as the urge to sleep during the day despite an intention to remain alert after optimal treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This is a distressing outcome with an estimated prevalence of 9% to 22% among patients with OSA (Pépin JL, et al. Eur Respir J. 2009;33[5]:1062). The pathophysiology of the condition is complex, and experimental studies conducted on animal models have demonstrated that chronic sleep fragmentation and chronic intermittent hypoxia can result in detrimental effects on wake-promoting neurons. Additionally, there is evidence of heightened oxidative stress and alterations in melatonin secretion, with the severity and duration of the disease playing a significant role in the manifestation of these effects (Javaheri S, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:776). It is considered a diagnosis of exclusion, with the assessment being mostly subjective. Prior to diagnosing REDS, it is crucial to optimize positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy and nocturnal ventilation, ensure sufficient adherence to sleep hygiene practices, and exclude the presence of other sleep disorders. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score is widely utilized as a primary clinical tool in the assessment of sleepiness. To enhance the precision of this score, it is advantageous to take input from both family members and friends. Additional objective assessments that could be considered include the utilization of the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) or the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT).
Off-label use of traditional central nervous system stimulants, like amphetamine or methylphenidate, in these patients is almost extinct. The potential for abuse and negative consequences outweighs the potential benefits. FDA-approved medications for treatment of REDS in OSA include modafinil, armodafinil, and solriamfetol in the United States.
Historically, modafinil and armodafinil are the first-line and most commonly used wake-promoting agents. Both agents bind to the dopamine transporter and inhibit dopamine reuptake. They have demonstrated efficacy in reducing EDS and improving wakefulness in patients with OSA treated with CPAP. A meta-analysis of 10 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of modafinil and armodafinil found that they were better than placebo by 2.2 points on the ESS score and 3 minutes on the MWT (Maintenance of Wakefulness Test) (Chapman JL, et al. Eur Respir J. 2016;47[5]:1420). Both drugs have common adverse effects of headache, nausea, nervousness, insomnia, dizziness, rhinitis, and diarrhea. Drug interaction with CYP3A4/5 substrates and oral contraceptives is a concern with these medications. In 2010, the European Medicines Agency restricted the use of modafinil only to patients with narcolepsy, considering its cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks (European Medicines Agency website; press release, July 22, 2010).
Solriamfetol is the newest medication being utilized for EDS in OSA and is approved in both the United States and Europe for this indication. It is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor with a simultaneous effect on both transporters. It has been effective in improving wakefulness and reducing sleepiness in patients with residual OSA. In the landmark trial TONES 3, dose-dependent (37.5, 75, 150, and 300 mg/day) effects were observed, with improvements in ESS scores of –1.9 to –4.7 points and sleep latency in MWT by 4.5 to 12.8 minutes (Schweitzer PK, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[11]:1421). The current recommended dosing for REDS in OSA is to start with the lowest dose of 37.5 mg/day and increase to the maximum dose of 150 mg/day by titrating up every 3 days if needed. A recent meta-analysis showed an indirect treatment comparison between efficacy and safety among the medications solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil (Ronnebaum S, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17[12]:2543). Six parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trials were looked at. The ESS score, MWT20 sleep latency, and CGI-C (Clinical Global Impression of Change) all got better in comparison to the placebo. Relative to the comparators and placebo at 12 weeks, solriamfetol at 150 mg and 300 mg had the highest degree of improvement in all the outcomes studied. Common adverse effects of solriamfetol include headache, nausea, decreased appetite, insomnia, dry mouth, anxiety, and minimal increase in blood pressure and heart rate. The adverse effects in terms of blood pressure and heart rate change have a dose-dependent relationship, and serial vitals monitoring is recommended for patients every 6 months to a year. This medication is contraindicated in patients receiving concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) or within 14 days following discontinuation of an MAOI because of the risk of hypertensive reactions. Solriamfetol is renally excreted, so dose adjustment is needed in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. It is not recommended for use in end-stage renal disease (eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2) (SUNOSI. Full prescribing information. Axsome; revised 06/2023. https://www.sunosihcp.com/assets/files/sunosi.en.uspi.pdf. Accessed: Sept 24, 2023). Solriamfetol demonstrates a comparatively shorter half-life when compared with traditional pharmaceuticals like modafinil and armodafinil, implying the possibility of a decreased duration of its effects. The effect in question may exhibit interpersonal diversity in its impact on quality of life when applied in a therapeutic setting.
Pitolisant is another potential medication to treat REDS in patients with OSA. While only approved for treating EDS and cataplexy in adult US patients with narcolepsy, it is currently approved for REDS in OSA in Europe (Ozawade. European Medicines Agency. Last updated 12/05/2022. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/ozawade#product-information-section. Accessed: Oct 2, 2023). It is a selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist and an inverse agonist of the presynaptic H3 receptor. The fact that this medication is not scheduled and has a negligible or nonexistent risk of abuse is one of its advantages. It is dosed once daily, and the most frequent adverse effects include headaches and insomnia. A prolonged QT interval was observed in a few patients; caution is needed with concomitant use of other medications with known similar effects. Dosage modification is recommended in patients with moderate hepatic impairment and moderate to severe renal impairment. Drug interactions are also observed with the concomitant use of CYP2D6 inhibitors and CYP3A4 inducers. Pitolisant may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception, including up to 21 days after its discontinuation (WAKIX. Full prescribing information. Harmony biosciences; revised 12/2022.https://wakixhcp.com/pdf/wakix-tablets-pi.pdf. Accessed: Sept 24, 2023).
Dr. Mechineni is Sleep Attending Physician, Ascension Illinois, Alexian Brothers Medical Center, Chicago. Dr. Sahni is Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, Associate Program Director, Sleep Medicine Fellowship; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Residual excessive daytime sleepiness (REDS) is defined as the urge to sleep during the day despite an intention to remain alert after optimal treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This is a distressing outcome with an estimated prevalence of 9% to 22% among patients with OSA (Pépin JL, et al. Eur Respir J. 2009;33[5]:1062). The pathophysiology of the condition is complex, and experimental studies conducted on animal models have demonstrated that chronic sleep fragmentation and chronic intermittent hypoxia can result in detrimental effects on wake-promoting neurons. Additionally, there is evidence of heightened oxidative stress and alterations in melatonin secretion, with the severity and duration of the disease playing a significant role in the manifestation of these effects (Javaheri S, et al. Chest. 2020;158[2]:776). It is considered a diagnosis of exclusion, with the assessment being mostly subjective. Prior to diagnosing REDS, it is crucial to optimize positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy and nocturnal ventilation, ensure sufficient adherence to sleep hygiene practices, and exclude the presence of other sleep disorders. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score is widely utilized as a primary clinical tool in the assessment of sleepiness. To enhance the precision of this score, it is advantageous to take input from both family members and friends. Additional objective assessments that could be considered include the utilization of the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) or the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT).
Off-label use of traditional central nervous system stimulants, like amphetamine or methylphenidate, in these patients is almost extinct. The potential for abuse and negative consequences outweighs the potential benefits. FDA-approved medications for treatment of REDS in OSA include modafinil, armodafinil, and solriamfetol in the United States.
Historically, modafinil and armodafinil are the first-line and most commonly used wake-promoting agents. Both agents bind to the dopamine transporter and inhibit dopamine reuptake. They have demonstrated efficacy in reducing EDS and improving wakefulness in patients with OSA treated with CPAP. A meta-analysis of 10 randomized, placebo-controlled trials of modafinil and armodafinil found that they were better than placebo by 2.2 points on the ESS score and 3 minutes on the MWT (Maintenance of Wakefulness Test) (Chapman JL, et al. Eur Respir J. 2016;47[5]:1420). Both drugs have common adverse effects of headache, nausea, nervousness, insomnia, dizziness, rhinitis, and diarrhea. Drug interaction with CYP3A4/5 substrates and oral contraceptives is a concern with these medications. In 2010, the European Medicines Agency restricted the use of modafinil only to patients with narcolepsy, considering its cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric risks (European Medicines Agency website; press release, July 22, 2010).
Solriamfetol is the newest medication being utilized for EDS in OSA and is approved in both the United States and Europe for this indication. It is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor with a simultaneous effect on both transporters. It has been effective in improving wakefulness and reducing sleepiness in patients with residual OSA. In the landmark trial TONES 3, dose-dependent (37.5, 75, 150, and 300 mg/day) effects were observed, with improvements in ESS scores of –1.9 to –4.7 points and sleep latency in MWT by 4.5 to 12.8 minutes (Schweitzer PK, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[11]:1421). The current recommended dosing for REDS in OSA is to start with the lowest dose of 37.5 mg/day and increase to the maximum dose of 150 mg/day by titrating up every 3 days if needed. A recent meta-analysis showed an indirect treatment comparison between efficacy and safety among the medications solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil (Ronnebaum S, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17[12]:2543). Six parallel-arm, placebo-controlled, randomized, controlled trials were looked at. The ESS score, MWT20 sleep latency, and CGI-C (Clinical Global Impression of Change) all got better in comparison to the placebo. Relative to the comparators and placebo at 12 weeks, solriamfetol at 150 mg and 300 mg had the highest degree of improvement in all the outcomes studied. Common adverse effects of solriamfetol include headache, nausea, decreased appetite, insomnia, dry mouth, anxiety, and minimal increase in blood pressure and heart rate. The adverse effects in terms of blood pressure and heart rate change have a dose-dependent relationship, and serial vitals monitoring is recommended for patients every 6 months to a year. This medication is contraindicated in patients receiving concomitant monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) or within 14 days following discontinuation of an MAOI because of the risk of hypertensive reactions. Solriamfetol is renally excreted, so dose adjustment is needed in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. It is not recommended for use in end-stage renal disease (eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2) (SUNOSI. Full prescribing information. Axsome; revised 06/2023. https://www.sunosihcp.com/assets/files/sunosi.en.uspi.pdf. Accessed: Sept 24, 2023). Solriamfetol demonstrates a comparatively shorter half-life when compared with traditional pharmaceuticals like modafinil and armodafinil, implying the possibility of a decreased duration of its effects. The effect in question may exhibit interpersonal diversity in its impact on quality of life when applied in a therapeutic setting.
Pitolisant is another potential medication to treat REDS in patients with OSA. While only approved for treating EDS and cataplexy in adult US patients with narcolepsy, it is currently approved for REDS in OSA in Europe (Ozawade. European Medicines Agency. Last updated 12/05/2022. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/ozawade#product-information-section. Accessed: Oct 2, 2023). It is a selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist and an inverse agonist of the presynaptic H3 receptor. The fact that this medication is not scheduled and has a negligible or nonexistent risk of abuse is one of its advantages. It is dosed once daily, and the most frequent adverse effects include headaches and insomnia. A prolonged QT interval was observed in a few patients; caution is needed with concomitant use of other medications with known similar effects. Dosage modification is recommended in patients with moderate hepatic impairment and moderate to severe renal impairment. Drug interactions are also observed with the concomitant use of CYP2D6 inhibitors and CYP3A4 inducers. Pitolisant may reduce the efficacy of hormonal contraception, including up to 21 days after its discontinuation (WAKIX. Full prescribing information. Harmony biosciences; revised 12/2022.https://wakixhcp.com/pdf/wakix-tablets-pi.pdf. Accessed: Sept 24, 2023).
Dr. Mechineni is Sleep Attending Physician, Ascension Illinois, Alexian Brothers Medical Center, Chicago. Dr. Sahni is Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine, Associate Program Director, Sleep Medicine Fellowship; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Sedative use in older adults after critical illness
Modifications to medication regimens may include stopping home medications for chronic conditions, dose adjustments for altered organ function, or initiating new treatments for acute illness(es). Common examples of changes to a critically ill patient’s medication regimen are stopping a chronic antihypertensive drug in the setting of shock, holding an oral medication that cannot be crushed or administered through a feeding tube, and initiating sedatives and analgesics to support invasive mechanical ventilation. Medication regimens are especially vulnerable to errors and omissions at transition points (i.e., ICU to ward transfers and home discharge). As critical illness resolves and patients transition to different care teams, the hospital discharge medication regimen may differ from the preadmission list with the omission of prehospital medications and/or the continuation of acute medications no longer needed without thorough medication review and reconciliation.
While admitted to ICU, many critically ill patients – particularly those who are mechanically ventilated – receive intravenous or enteral sedatives such as benzodiazepines and antipsychotics. Sedatives are prescribed to more than two-thirds of critically ill patients for disturbing symptoms of agitation, delirium, anxiety, and insomnia and to facilitate invasive procedures (Burry LD, et al. J Crit Care. 2017;42:268). Current sedation practice guidelines endorse the use of sedatives when indicated for the shortest duration possible, given the known associated serious short- and long-term adverse drug events (Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825). Previous research has demonstrated that benzodiazepines initiated in-hospital are often continued on discharge for older adults and that patients from the ICU are at greater risk of benzodiazepine continuation than patients hospitalized without an ICU admission (Scales DC, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31[2]:196; Bell C, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22[7]:1024). This is particularly concerning for older adults as sedatives have been associated with serious adverse events in community-dwelling older adults, including falls and cognitive impairment (American Geriatrics Society. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63[11]:2227)
The cohort of patients included all adults aged 66 years or more, who were discharged alive from the hospital and who were sedative-naive prior to hospitalization. Sedative-naive status was defined as no sedative prescription filled for any class, dose, or duration in the 180 days before hospital admission. The proportion of ICU survivors who filled a sedative prescription within 1 week of hospital discharge was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients that filled each sedative class (e.g., antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, nonbenzodiazepine sedative) within 1 week of hospital discharge and persistent sedative prescription (additional prescriptions filled within 6 months after discharge).
The cohort included 250,428 sedative-naive older adults. The mean age was 75.8 years, 61.0% were male, 26.3% received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 14.8% had sepsis. In total, 6.1% (n=15,277) of patients filled a sedative prescription within 1 week of discharge; 57.7% (n = 8824) filled a benzodiazepine, 18.0% (n = 2749) filled a non-benzodiazepine sedative, 17.9% (n = 2745) filled an antipsychotic, and 6.2% (n = 959) filled more than 1 sedative drug class. Most patients filled prescriptions on the day of discharge (median 0 days (interquartile range (IQR) 0-3). The study found considerable variation in the primary outcome across the 153 hospitals: 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2% to 2.8%) to 44.0% (95% CI 3.0% to –57.8%) filled a sedative prescription within a week of hospital discharge. The factors strongly associated with an increased odds of a sedative prescription filled within a week of discharge included: discharge to long-term care (adjusted OR (aOR) 4.00, 95% CI 3.72 to 4.31), receipt of inpatient geriatric (aOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.80 to 2.10) or psychiatry consultation (aOR 2.76, 95% CI 2.62, 2.91), mechanical ventilation (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.66), and admitted ≥ 7 days to the ICU (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.58). Among hospital factors, a community hospital (vs academic) (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70) and rural location (vs urban) (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.05) were also associated with new sedative prescriptions. Even after adjusting for patient and site characteristics, there was considerable remaining variability between sites quantified by the median odds ratio (aMOR) of 1.43. By drug class, there were similar findings with the exception of different associations for sex and frailty. For benzodiazepine prescriptions, female sex was associated with increased odds of a prescription (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.18), while frailty was inversely associated (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89). The opposite associations were identified for antipsychotics: female sex (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81) and frailty (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.55). No associations were identified for sex and frailty and non-benzodiazepine sedative prescriptions.
Persistent sedative prescription was common as 55% met the definition of persistence, filling a median of 2 prescriptions (IQR 1,3) in the 6 months after hospital discharge. The factors associated with persistent sedative prescriptions were similar to those identified above except female sex was associated with persistent sedative prescription (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.13). Those who filled an antipsychotic prescription (sHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.56), a non-benzodiazepine sedative prescription (sHR 1.44, 955 CI 1.34 to 1.53), or prescriptions for more than 1 sedative class filled (sHR 2.16, 95% CI 1.97 to 2.37) were more likely to fill persistent prescriptions compared with those who filled a prescription for a benzodiazepine alone as their first sedative.
In summary, 1 in 15 sedative-naive older adults filled a sedative prescription within a week of hospital discharge following a critical illness, and many continued to fill sedative prescriptions in the next 6 months. We were able to identify factors associated with new sedative prescriptions that could be targeted for stewardship programs or quality improvement projects that focus on medication safety and reconciliation. Medication stewardship and reconciliation processes have been broadly studied in many patient care settings but not the ICU. There is still much to determine regarding de-escalating and discontinuing sedatives as critical illness resolves and patients are liberated from intensive clinical interventions as well as the consequences of sedative exposure after hospital discharge for this population.
Dr. Burry is with the Departments of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sinai Health; Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Dr. Williamson is with the Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal; Pharmacy Département, Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal; and Research center, CIUSSS du Nord-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, Canada.
Modifications to medication regimens may include stopping home medications for chronic conditions, dose adjustments for altered organ function, or initiating new treatments for acute illness(es). Common examples of changes to a critically ill patient’s medication regimen are stopping a chronic antihypertensive drug in the setting of shock, holding an oral medication that cannot be crushed or administered through a feeding tube, and initiating sedatives and analgesics to support invasive mechanical ventilation. Medication regimens are especially vulnerable to errors and omissions at transition points (i.e., ICU to ward transfers and home discharge). As critical illness resolves and patients transition to different care teams, the hospital discharge medication regimen may differ from the preadmission list with the omission of prehospital medications and/or the continuation of acute medications no longer needed without thorough medication review and reconciliation.
While admitted to ICU, many critically ill patients – particularly those who are mechanically ventilated – receive intravenous or enteral sedatives such as benzodiazepines and antipsychotics. Sedatives are prescribed to more than two-thirds of critically ill patients for disturbing symptoms of agitation, delirium, anxiety, and insomnia and to facilitate invasive procedures (Burry LD, et al. J Crit Care. 2017;42:268). Current sedation practice guidelines endorse the use of sedatives when indicated for the shortest duration possible, given the known associated serious short- and long-term adverse drug events (Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825). Previous research has demonstrated that benzodiazepines initiated in-hospital are often continued on discharge for older adults and that patients from the ICU are at greater risk of benzodiazepine continuation than patients hospitalized without an ICU admission (Scales DC, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31[2]:196; Bell C, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22[7]:1024). This is particularly concerning for older adults as sedatives have been associated with serious adverse events in community-dwelling older adults, including falls and cognitive impairment (American Geriatrics Society. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63[11]:2227)
The cohort of patients included all adults aged 66 years or more, who were discharged alive from the hospital and who were sedative-naive prior to hospitalization. Sedative-naive status was defined as no sedative prescription filled for any class, dose, or duration in the 180 days before hospital admission. The proportion of ICU survivors who filled a sedative prescription within 1 week of hospital discharge was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients that filled each sedative class (e.g., antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, nonbenzodiazepine sedative) within 1 week of hospital discharge and persistent sedative prescription (additional prescriptions filled within 6 months after discharge).
The cohort included 250,428 sedative-naive older adults. The mean age was 75.8 years, 61.0% were male, 26.3% received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 14.8% had sepsis. In total, 6.1% (n=15,277) of patients filled a sedative prescription within 1 week of discharge; 57.7% (n = 8824) filled a benzodiazepine, 18.0% (n = 2749) filled a non-benzodiazepine sedative, 17.9% (n = 2745) filled an antipsychotic, and 6.2% (n = 959) filled more than 1 sedative drug class. Most patients filled prescriptions on the day of discharge (median 0 days (interquartile range (IQR) 0-3). The study found considerable variation in the primary outcome across the 153 hospitals: 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2% to 2.8%) to 44.0% (95% CI 3.0% to –57.8%) filled a sedative prescription within a week of hospital discharge. The factors strongly associated with an increased odds of a sedative prescription filled within a week of discharge included: discharge to long-term care (adjusted OR (aOR) 4.00, 95% CI 3.72 to 4.31), receipt of inpatient geriatric (aOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.80 to 2.10) or psychiatry consultation (aOR 2.76, 95% CI 2.62, 2.91), mechanical ventilation (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.66), and admitted ≥ 7 days to the ICU (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.58). Among hospital factors, a community hospital (vs academic) (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70) and rural location (vs urban) (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.05) were also associated with new sedative prescriptions. Even after adjusting for patient and site characteristics, there was considerable remaining variability between sites quantified by the median odds ratio (aMOR) of 1.43. By drug class, there were similar findings with the exception of different associations for sex and frailty. For benzodiazepine prescriptions, female sex was associated with increased odds of a prescription (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.18), while frailty was inversely associated (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89). The opposite associations were identified for antipsychotics: female sex (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81) and frailty (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.55). No associations were identified for sex and frailty and non-benzodiazepine sedative prescriptions.
Persistent sedative prescription was common as 55% met the definition of persistence, filling a median of 2 prescriptions (IQR 1,3) in the 6 months after hospital discharge. The factors associated with persistent sedative prescriptions were similar to those identified above except female sex was associated with persistent sedative prescription (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.13). Those who filled an antipsychotic prescription (sHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.56), a non-benzodiazepine sedative prescription (sHR 1.44, 955 CI 1.34 to 1.53), or prescriptions for more than 1 sedative class filled (sHR 2.16, 95% CI 1.97 to 2.37) were more likely to fill persistent prescriptions compared with those who filled a prescription for a benzodiazepine alone as their first sedative.
In summary, 1 in 15 sedative-naive older adults filled a sedative prescription within a week of hospital discharge following a critical illness, and many continued to fill sedative prescriptions in the next 6 months. We were able to identify factors associated with new sedative prescriptions that could be targeted for stewardship programs or quality improvement projects that focus on medication safety and reconciliation. Medication stewardship and reconciliation processes have been broadly studied in many patient care settings but not the ICU. There is still much to determine regarding de-escalating and discontinuing sedatives as critical illness resolves and patients are liberated from intensive clinical interventions as well as the consequences of sedative exposure after hospital discharge for this population.
Dr. Burry is with the Departments of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sinai Health; Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Dr. Williamson is with the Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal; Pharmacy Département, Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal; and Research center, CIUSSS du Nord-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, Canada.
Modifications to medication regimens may include stopping home medications for chronic conditions, dose adjustments for altered organ function, or initiating new treatments for acute illness(es). Common examples of changes to a critically ill patient’s medication regimen are stopping a chronic antihypertensive drug in the setting of shock, holding an oral medication that cannot be crushed or administered through a feeding tube, and initiating sedatives and analgesics to support invasive mechanical ventilation. Medication regimens are especially vulnerable to errors and omissions at transition points (i.e., ICU to ward transfers and home discharge). As critical illness resolves and patients transition to different care teams, the hospital discharge medication regimen may differ from the preadmission list with the omission of prehospital medications and/or the continuation of acute medications no longer needed without thorough medication review and reconciliation.
While admitted to ICU, many critically ill patients – particularly those who are mechanically ventilated – receive intravenous or enteral sedatives such as benzodiazepines and antipsychotics. Sedatives are prescribed to more than two-thirds of critically ill patients for disturbing symptoms of agitation, delirium, anxiety, and insomnia and to facilitate invasive procedures (Burry LD, et al. J Crit Care. 2017;42:268). Current sedation practice guidelines endorse the use of sedatives when indicated for the shortest duration possible, given the known associated serious short- and long-term adverse drug events (Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825). Previous research has demonstrated that benzodiazepines initiated in-hospital are often continued on discharge for older adults and that patients from the ICU are at greater risk of benzodiazepine continuation than patients hospitalized without an ICU admission (Scales DC, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31[2]:196; Bell C, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22[7]:1024). This is particularly concerning for older adults as sedatives have been associated with serious adverse events in community-dwelling older adults, including falls and cognitive impairment (American Geriatrics Society. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63[11]:2227)
The cohort of patients included all adults aged 66 years or more, who were discharged alive from the hospital and who were sedative-naive prior to hospitalization. Sedative-naive status was defined as no sedative prescription filled for any class, dose, or duration in the 180 days before hospital admission. The proportion of ICU survivors who filled a sedative prescription within 1 week of hospital discharge was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients that filled each sedative class (e.g., antipsychotic, benzodiazepine, nonbenzodiazepine sedative) within 1 week of hospital discharge and persistent sedative prescription (additional prescriptions filled within 6 months after discharge).
The cohort included 250,428 sedative-naive older adults. The mean age was 75.8 years, 61.0% were male, 26.3% received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 14.8% had sepsis. In total, 6.1% (n=15,277) of patients filled a sedative prescription within 1 week of discharge; 57.7% (n = 8824) filled a benzodiazepine, 18.0% (n = 2749) filled a non-benzodiazepine sedative, 17.9% (n = 2745) filled an antipsychotic, and 6.2% (n = 959) filled more than 1 sedative drug class. Most patients filled prescriptions on the day of discharge (median 0 days (interquartile range (IQR) 0-3). The study found considerable variation in the primary outcome across the 153 hospitals: 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2% to 2.8%) to 44.0% (95% CI 3.0% to –57.8%) filled a sedative prescription within a week of hospital discharge. The factors strongly associated with an increased odds of a sedative prescription filled within a week of discharge included: discharge to long-term care (adjusted OR (aOR) 4.00, 95% CI 3.72 to 4.31), receipt of inpatient geriatric (aOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.80 to 2.10) or psychiatry consultation (aOR 2.76, 95% CI 2.62, 2.91), mechanical ventilation (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.66), and admitted ≥ 7 days to the ICU (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.58). Among hospital factors, a community hospital (vs academic) (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70) and rural location (vs urban) (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.05) were also associated with new sedative prescriptions. Even after adjusting for patient and site characteristics, there was considerable remaining variability between sites quantified by the median odds ratio (aMOR) of 1.43. By drug class, there were similar findings with the exception of different associations for sex and frailty. For benzodiazepine prescriptions, female sex was associated with increased odds of a prescription (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.18), while frailty was inversely associated (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89). The opposite associations were identified for antipsychotics: female sex (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81) and frailty (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.55). No associations were identified for sex and frailty and non-benzodiazepine sedative prescriptions.
Persistent sedative prescription was common as 55% met the definition of persistence, filling a median of 2 prescriptions (IQR 1,3) in the 6 months after hospital discharge. The factors associated with persistent sedative prescriptions were similar to those identified above except female sex was associated with persistent sedative prescription (sHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.13). Those who filled an antipsychotic prescription (sHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.56), a non-benzodiazepine sedative prescription (sHR 1.44, 955 CI 1.34 to 1.53), or prescriptions for more than 1 sedative class filled (sHR 2.16, 95% CI 1.97 to 2.37) were more likely to fill persistent prescriptions compared with those who filled a prescription for a benzodiazepine alone as their first sedative.
In summary, 1 in 15 sedative-naive older adults filled a sedative prescription within a week of hospital discharge following a critical illness, and many continued to fill sedative prescriptions in the next 6 months. We were able to identify factors associated with new sedative prescriptions that could be targeted for stewardship programs or quality improvement projects that focus on medication safety and reconciliation. Medication stewardship and reconciliation processes have been broadly studied in many patient care settings but not the ICU. There is still much to determine regarding de-escalating and discontinuing sedatives as critical illness resolves and patients are liberated from intensive clinical interventions as well as the consequences of sedative exposure after hospital discharge for this population.
Dr. Burry is with the Departments of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sinai Health; Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Dr. Williamson is with the Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Montréal; Pharmacy Département, Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal; and Research center, CIUSSS du Nord-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, Canada.
Updated pleural disease guidelines from the British Thoracic Society
Thoracic Oncology & Chest Imaging Network
Pleural Disease Section
After more than a decade, the British Thoracic Society (BTS) released updated guidelines for pleural disease (Roberts ME , et al. Thorax 2023; 78, s1-s42). Their focus includes spontaneous pneumothorax, undiagnosed unilateral pleural effusion, pleural infections, and malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Separate statements for pleural procedures (Asciak R et al. Thorax. 2023;78:s43-s68) and pleural mesothelioma (Woolhouse I et al. Thorax. 2018;73:i1-i30) are available.
Major highlights of the recommendations are as follows:
- Conservative management can be considered for minimally symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax regardless of size. A multi-disciplinary approach and shared decision-making is vital, especially when deciding between needle aspiration, intercostal drainage or ambulatory devices. Special recommendations were for pregnancy, cystic fibrosis, catamenial, iatrogenic and familial.
- Undiagnosed unilateral pleural effusion. Besides pleural fluid studies, in those with unclear etiology, thoracoscopic or image-guided pleural biopsy is recommended.
- Pleural infection. Use of renal, age, purulence, infection source, dietary factors (RAPID) scoring may be considered for risk stratification. Drainage of the pleural space with catheter and intrapleural therapy with combination tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) and DNAse in residual pleural fluid should be considered. Medical thoracoscopy not supported due to lack of evidence.
- MPE. Definitive pleural intervention based on symptoms and shared decision making was supported. Modality may include talc slurry via chest tube, talc poudrage via thoracoscopy or talc instillation via indwelling pleural catheter. Intrapleural chemotherapy should not be routinely used for treatment of MPE.
These guidelines provide a comprehensive consensus to the literature and reinforce prior recommendations of other professional societies (Gilbert CR et al. Chest. 2020;158:2221-8. Miller RJ et al.; J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2020;27[4]:229-45. Feller-Kopman DJ et al.; Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198:839-49).
Munish Sharma, MD
Hiren Mehta, MD, Section Member-at-Large
Philip Ong, MD, Section Member-at-Large
Thoracic Oncology & Chest Imaging Network
Pleural Disease Section
After more than a decade, the British Thoracic Society (BTS) released updated guidelines for pleural disease (Roberts ME , et al. Thorax 2023; 78, s1-s42). Their focus includes spontaneous pneumothorax, undiagnosed unilateral pleural effusion, pleural infections, and malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Separate statements for pleural procedures (Asciak R et al. Thorax. 2023;78:s43-s68) and pleural mesothelioma (Woolhouse I et al. Thorax. 2018;73:i1-i30) are available.
Major highlights of the recommendations are as follows:
- Conservative management can be considered for minimally symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax regardless of size. A multi-disciplinary approach and shared decision-making is vital, especially when deciding between needle aspiration, intercostal drainage or ambulatory devices. Special recommendations were for pregnancy, cystic fibrosis, catamenial, iatrogenic and familial.
- Undiagnosed unilateral pleural effusion. Besides pleural fluid studies, in those with unclear etiology, thoracoscopic or image-guided pleural biopsy is recommended.
- Pleural infection. Use of renal, age, purulence, infection source, dietary factors (RAPID) scoring may be considered for risk stratification. Drainage of the pleural space with catheter and intrapleural therapy with combination tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) and DNAse in residual pleural fluid should be considered. Medical thoracoscopy not supported due to lack of evidence.
- MPE. Definitive pleural intervention based on symptoms and shared decision making was supported. Modality may include talc slurry via chest tube, talc poudrage via thoracoscopy or talc instillation via indwelling pleural catheter. Intrapleural chemotherapy should not be routinely used for treatment of MPE.
These guidelines provide a comprehensive consensus to the literature and reinforce prior recommendations of other professional societies (Gilbert CR et al. Chest. 2020;158:2221-8. Miller RJ et al.; J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2020;27[4]:229-45. Feller-Kopman DJ et al.; Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198:839-49).
Munish Sharma, MD
Hiren Mehta, MD, Section Member-at-Large
Philip Ong, MD, Section Member-at-Large
Thoracic Oncology & Chest Imaging Network
Pleural Disease Section
After more than a decade, the British Thoracic Society (BTS) released updated guidelines for pleural disease (Roberts ME , et al. Thorax 2023; 78, s1-s42). Their focus includes spontaneous pneumothorax, undiagnosed unilateral pleural effusion, pleural infections, and malignant pleural effusion (MPE). Separate statements for pleural procedures (Asciak R et al. Thorax. 2023;78:s43-s68) and pleural mesothelioma (Woolhouse I et al. Thorax. 2018;73:i1-i30) are available.
Major highlights of the recommendations are as follows:
- Conservative management can be considered for minimally symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax regardless of size. A multi-disciplinary approach and shared decision-making is vital, especially when deciding between needle aspiration, intercostal drainage or ambulatory devices. Special recommendations were for pregnancy, cystic fibrosis, catamenial, iatrogenic and familial.
- Undiagnosed unilateral pleural effusion. Besides pleural fluid studies, in those with unclear etiology, thoracoscopic or image-guided pleural biopsy is recommended.
- Pleural infection. Use of renal, age, purulence, infection source, dietary factors (RAPID) scoring may be considered for risk stratification. Drainage of the pleural space with catheter and intrapleural therapy with combination tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) and DNAse in residual pleural fluid should be considered. Medical thoracoscopy not supported due to lack of evidence.
- MPE. Definitive pleural intervention based on symptoms and shared decision making was supported. Modality may include talc slurry via chest tube, talc poudrage via thoracoscopy or talc instillation via indwelling pleural catheter. Intrapleural chemotherapy should not be routinely used for treatment of MPE.
These guidelines provide a comprehensive consensus to the literature and reinforce prior recommendations of other professional societies (Gilbert CR et al. Chest. 2020;158:2221-8. Miller RJ et al.; J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2020;27[4]:229-45. Feller-Kopman DJ et al.; Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198:839-49).
Munish Sharma, MD
Hiren Mehta, MD, Section Member-at-Large
Philip Ong, MD, Section Member-at-Large
CPAP in overlap syndrome: Unveiling the evidence
Sleep Medicine Network
Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section
The overlap syndrome (OS), which refers to the co-occurrence of OSA and COPD, was first described by Flenley in 1985 (Flenley DC. Clin Chest Med. 1985;6[4]:651). Over the years, numerous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of hospitalization and mortality in patients with OS (Brennan M, et al. 2022;1-10). Despite these findings, limited evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment approach for individuals with OS.
CPAP therapy has demonstrated various physiologic advantages for patients with OS (Srivali N, et al. Sleep Med. 2023;108:55-60), which contribute to diminished dyspnea symptoms, lowered pro-inflammatory markers, improved arterial blood gases, increased 6-minute walk distance, enhanced FEV1, and decreased mean pulmonary artery pressure (Suri TM, et al. FASEB BioAdv. 2021;3[9]:683-93). CPAP therapy in patients with OS has been linked to a reduction in COPD exacerbations (Voulgaris A, et al. Clin Respir Jour. 2023; 17[3]:165), fewer COPD-related hospitalizations (Marin JM, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182[3]:325-31), decreased cardiovascular events (Kendzerska T, et al. Ann ATS. 2019;16[1]:71), and an overall decline in mortality rates (Machado ML, et al. Eur Respir J. 2010;35[1]:132-7).
It is important to acknowledge that, as of now, no randomized clinical trial has specifically addressed the treatment of OS, leaving recommendations largely reliant on observational studies. Conversely, recent guidelines have proposed the utilization of high-intensity noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypercapnic patients with COPD. Thus, extensive research is warranted to characterize distinct sleep-related breathing disorders within the OS population and to investigate the effects of CPAP in comparison to other NIV modalities on patients with overlap syndrome.
Solmaz Ehteshami-Afshar, MD
Kirat Gill, MD, Section Member-at-Large
Sleep Medicine Network
Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section
The overlap syndrome (OS), which refers to the co-occurrence of OSA and COPD, was first described by Flenley in 1985 (Flenley DC. Clin Chest Med. 1985;6[4]:651). Over the years, numerous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of hospitalization and mortality in patients with OS (Brennan M, et al. 2022;1-10). Despite these findings, limited evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment approach for individuals with OS.
CPAP therapy has demonstrated various physiologic advantages for patients with OS (Srivali N, et al. Sleep Med. 2023;108:55-60), which contribute to diminished dyspnea symptoms, lowered pro-inflammatory markers, improved arterial blood gases, increased 6-minute walk distance, enhanced FEV1, and decreased mean pulmonary artery pressure (Suri TM, et al. FASEB BioAdv. 2021;3[9]:683-93). CPAP therapy in patients with OS has been linked to a reduction in COPD exacerbations (Voulgaris A, et al. Clin Respir Jour. 2023; 17[3]:165), fewer COPD-related hospitalizations (Marin JM, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182[3]:325-31), decreased cardiovascular events (Kendzerska T, et al. Ann ATS. 2019;16[1]:71), and an overall decline in mortality rates (Machado ML, et al. Eur Respir J. 2010;35[1]:132-7).
It is important to acknowledge that, as of now, no randomized clinical trial has specifically addressed the treatment of OS, leaving recommendations largely reliant on observational studies. Conversely, recent guidelines have proposed the utilization of high-intensity noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypercapnic patients with COPD. Thus, extensive research is warranted to characterize distinct sleep-related breathing disorders within the OS population and to investigate the effects of CPAP in comparison to other NIV modalities on patients with overlap syndrome.
Solmaz Ehteshami-Afshar, MD
Kirat Gill, MD, Section Member-at-Large
Sleep Medicine Network
Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section
The overlap syndrome (OS), which refers to the co-occurrence of OSA and COPD, was first described by Flenley in 1985 (Flenley DC. Clin Chest Med. 1985;6[4]:651). Over the years, numerous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of hospitalization and mortality in patients with OS (Brennan M, et al. 2022;1-10). Despite these findings, limited evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment approach for individuals with OS.
CPAP therapy has demonstrated various physiologic advantages for patients with OS (Srivali N, et al. Sleep Med. 2023;108:55-60), which contribute to diminished dyspnea symptoms, lowered pro-inflammatory markers, improved arterial blood gases, increased 6-minute walk distance, enhanced FEV1, and decreased mean pulmonary artery pressure (Suri TM, et al. FASEB BioAdv. 2021;3[9]:683-93). CPAP therapy in patients with OS has been linked to a reduction in COPD exacerbations (Voulgaris A, et al. Clin Respir Jour. 2023; 17[3]:165), fewer COPD-related hospitalizations (Marin JM, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;182[3]:325-31), decreased cardiovascular events (Kendzerska T, et al. Ann ATS. 2019;16[1]:71), and an overall decline in mortality rates (Machado ML, et al. Eur Respir J. 2010;35[1]:132-7).
It is important to acknowledge that, as of now, no randomized clinical trial has specifically addressed the treatment of OS, leaving recommendations largely reliant on observational studies. Conversely, recent guidelines have proposed the utilization of high-intensity noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypercapnic patients with COPD. Thus, extensive research is warranted to characterize distinct sleep-related breathing disorders within the OS population and to investigate the effects of CPAP in comparison to other NIV modalities on patients with overlap syndrome.
Solmaz Ehteshami-Afshar, MD
Kirat Gill, MD, Section Member-at-Large