Cardiology

Highly selected low-risk patients can be safely sent home about 24 hours after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when supported by intense, multidisciplinary virtual follow-up, a prospective study suggests for the first time.

The risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in STEMI patients following an early hospital discharge (EHD) pathway was similar at 9 months to that seen for propensity-matched historic control subjects who met the same EHD criteria but were discharged later than 48 hours.

The stay in almost half (48%) the early discharge group was 24 hours or less, according to the study, published Dec. 13 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve shown that if we use appropriate risk criteria and instigate the appropriate, safe follow-up that it’s safe to select and discharge low-risk patients at an earlier time period, such as 24 hours,” senior author Daniel A. Jones, PhD, Barts Heart Centre, London, this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s one center in one city in the world,” he said. “Whether it’s applicable at other heart site centers, I believe it is, but I think we need more data to be able to change guidelines.”

Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines say that select patients should be considered for early discharge 48 to 72 hours after STEMI, but the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized the team to try and push that window.

“The COVID pandemic essentially brought a focus on resources, on minimizing the risk to our patient population in terms of catching COVID within hospital,” he said. “It became clear that to maintain the heart site service, we probably needed to get people out a bit quicker than we did before, so we came up with this pathway.”

Between March 2020 and June 2021, 600 patients presenting with STEMI were entered into the EHD pathway if they met the following pre-existing criteria for 48- to 72-hour discharge:

• Left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or greater
• Successful primary PCI with TIMI flow grade 3
• Absence of bystander disease requiring inpatient revascularization
• No recurrent ischemic symptoms
• No heart failure
• No significant arrhythmias
• No hemodynamic instability
• No significant comorbidity
• Suitable social circumstances for early discharge

The patients were given cardiac rehabilitation counseling over the phone within 48 hours and blood pressure machines if not available at home. At weeks 2 and 8, they spoke virtually with a dedicated cardiology advanced care practitioner who up-titrated medications and answered any questions. At week 12, they were seen by an interventional cardiologist or at a high-risk prevention clinic.

Their mean age was 59.2 years, 86% were male, the median symptom-to-balloon time was 80 minutes, and median door-to-balloon time was 50 minutes.

The early discharge patients were compared with 700 historic control subjects who met the EHD criteria and were discharged after 48 hours from Oct. 2018 to June 2021 and 560 patients discharged on standard-care pathways between April 2020 and June 2021.

Those discharged after 48 hours were more likely to have an anterior MI, multivessel disease, and multivessel PCI.
 

Comparable outcomes

The median length of stay was 24.6 hours (minimum 17 hours, maximum 40 hours) for the EHD group, 56.1 hours for historic control subjects, and 78.9 hours for the standard-care group.

The introduction of the EHD pathway significantly reduced the overall length of stay for all STEMI patients compared with the pre-pathway period of Oct. 2018 to March 2020 (median, 3 vs. 2 days; P < .0001).

Length of stay varied among patients; however, 420 patients stayed 1 less night in the hospital with the remaining patients staying about 8 to 12 fewer hours, resulting in approximate savings of £450,000, the authors note.

Over a median follow-up of 271 days, there were no cardiovascular deaths, two deaths from COVID-19, and a MACE rate of 1.2% (two deaths, three unscheduled revascularizations, and two further MI presentations) in the EHD group. That compares with a 0.7% mortality and 1.9% rate of MACE among historic control subjects, neither of which were significantly different.

There was also no difference in mortality (0.34% vs. 0.69%; P = .410) or MACE (1.2% vs. 1.9%; P = .342) among 560 pairs of propensity-matched EHD patients and historic control subjects.

Mortality was 4.1% in the standard-care group; cardiovascular mortality was 2.2%, and the rate of MACE was 8.6%.

When patients were surveyed, 85% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the EHD pathway, whereas 73% of control and standard-care patients were satisfied with their care. Three-fourths of EHD patients also reported saving money and 62.5% saved time off work because of the virtual follow-up.
 

Judgment calls

“They didn’t really tell us much about the patients who didn’t qualify into this ultra–low-risk group but, obviously, it’s highly selected,” Cindy Grines, MD, Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Lawrenceville, Georgia, said in an interview. “In the U.S., you don’t get those chest pain onset-to-reperfusion in 80 minutes. So that was really kind of shocking.”

It also suggests that early discharge was applied to patients who may have had minimal myocardial damage from the STEMI, she suggested. “Even in their own hospital system, a lot of patients who met the criteria on paper were kept longer than 48 hours. So a lot of it’s a judgment call.”

Additional red flags where physicians may overrule the early discharge protocol are very late perfusion, advanced age, severe renal insufficiency, profound anemia, cardiac arrest requiring more than brief resuscitation, bleeding complications, or symptomatic coronavirus, Dr. Grines and J. Jeffrey Marshall, MD, also from Northside, observe in an accompanying editorial.

About 60% of patients were suitable for the EHD pathway, Dr. Jones said. “Typically, they are quite low risk, but we still had four in 10 anterior infarct, and about 25% had left ventricular function between 40% and 45%. So even though the majority are low risk, there are patients in there that you would consider to have had a decent infarct.”

“I think this is applicable to patients at most centers, and probably anywhere between a third to a fifth of all patients presenting to heart centers would be suitable for this discharge pathway,” he said.

Dr. Grines said the pathway is “definitely feasible” but there aren’t enough patients studied to know with 100% certainty whether it’s safe. A single observational study also isn’t enough to change guidelines, which in the United States do not comment on length of stay.

“In the ultra-low-risk patients – such as the ones where you got them in very early and you almost aborted the infarct or if it was a very small infarct – you can kind of treat them like an unstable angina patient, where you can do the PCI and potentially discharge them in 24 hours,” Dr. Grines said. “I think most of us might agree on that.”

“The other thing you have to weigh is the risk/benefit ratio,” she said. “If you have no beds available, you end up rationing care to some extent. So if you have a patient that’s otherwise doing well after a very small MI and have an emergency room full of people that need to be admitted and they’re sicker, then you end up making those judgment calls.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that current guidelines are based largely on observational data and that the team is planning to pilot the EHD pathway at five to 10 centers around the United Kingdom or potentially in Europe or the United States.

“This is an area where a [randomized controlled trial] RCT would be expensive, whereas a well-coordinated multicenter registry would probably provide enough information to change guidelines,” he said. “We’re not suggesting that every STEMI patient is suitable, but people that are low risk that you would already be considering for early discharge I think can go a bit quicker.”

Dr. Jones has received funding from the Barts Charity and financial support for blood pressure machines from the Barts Guild. First author Krishnaraj Rathod has received funding from the National Institute for Health and Research in the form of an Academic Clinical Lectureship. All other authors, Dr. Grines, and Dr. Marshall report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly selected low-risk patients can be safely sent home about 24 hours after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when supported by intense, multidisciplinary virtual follow-up, a prospective study suggests for the first time.

The risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in STEMI patients following an early hospital discharge (EHD) pathway was similar at 9 months to that seen for propensity-matched historic control subjects who met the same EHD criteria but were discharged later than 48 hours.

The stay in almost half (48%) the early discharge group was 24 hours or less, according to the study, published Dec. 13 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve shown that if we use appropriate risk criteria and instigate the appropriate, safe follow-up that it’s safe to select and discharge low-risk patients at an earlier time period, such as 24 hours,” senior author Daniel A. Jones, PhD, Barts Heart Centre, London, this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s one center in one city in the world,” he said. “Whether it’s applicable at other heart site centers, I believe it is, but I think we need more data to be able to change guidelines.”

Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines say that select patients should be considered for early discharge 48 to 72 hours after STEMI, but the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized the team to try and push that window.

“The COVID pandemic essentially brought a focus on resources, on minimizing the risk to our patient population in terms of catching COVID within hospital,” he said. “It became clear that to maintain the heart site service, we probably needed to get people out a bit quicker than we did before, so we came up with this pathway.”

Between March 2020 and June 2021, 600 patients presenting with STEMI were entered into the EHD pathway if they met the following pre-existing criteria for 48- to 72-hour discharge:

• Left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or greater
• Successful primary PCI with TIMI flow grade 3
• Absence of bystander disease requiring inpatient revascularization
• No recurrent ischemic symptoms
• No heart failure
• No significant arrhythmias
• No hemodynamic instability
• No significant comorbidity
• Suitable social circumstances for early discharge

The patients were given cardiac rehabilitation counseling over the phone within 48 hours and blood pressure machines if not available at home. At weeks 2 and 8, they spoke virtually with a dedicated cardiology advanced care practitioner who up-titrated medications and answered any questions. At week 12, they were seen by an interventional cardiologist or at a high-risk prevention clinic.

Their mean age was 59.2 years, 86% were male, the median symptom-to-balloon time was 80 minutes, and median door-to-balloon time was 50 minutes.

The early discharge patients were compared with 700 historic control subjects who met the EHD criteria and were discharged after 48 hours from Oct. 2018 to June 2021 and 560 patients discharged on standard-care pathways between April 2020 and June 2021.

Those discharged after 48 hours were more likely to have an anterior MI, multivessel disease, and multivessel PCI.
 

Comparable outcomes

The median length of stay was 24.6 hours (minimum 17 hours, maximum 40 hours) for the EHD group, 56.1 hours for historic control subjects, and 78.9 hours for the standard-care group.

The introduction of the EHD pathway significantly reduced the overall length of stay for all STEMI patients compared with the pre-pathway period of Oct. 2018 to March 2020 (median, 3 vs. 2 days; P < .0001).

Length of stay varied among patients; however, 420 patients stayed 1 less night in the hospital with the remaining patients staying about 8 to 12 fewer hours, resulting in approximate savings of £450,000, the authors note.

Over a median follow-up of 271 days, there were no cardiovascular deaths, two deaths from COVID-19, and a MACE rate of 1.2% (two deaths, three unscheduled revascularizations, and two further MI presentations) in the EHD group. That compares with a 0.7% mortality and 1.9% rate of MACE among historic control subjects, neither of which were significantly different.

There was also no difference in mortality (0.34% vs. 0.69%; P = .410) or MACE (1.2% vs. 1.9%; P = .342) among 560 pairs of propensity-matched EHD patients and historic control subjects.

Mortality was 4.1% in the standard-care group; cardiovascular mortality was 2.2%, and the rate of MACE was 8.6%.

When patients were surveyed, 85% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the EHD pathway, whereas 73% of control and standard-care patients were satisfied with their care. Three-fourths of EHD patients also reported saving money and 62.5% saved time off work because of the virtual follow-up.
 

Judgment calls

“They didn’t really tell us much about the patients who didn’t qualify into this ultra–low-risk group but, obviously, it’s highly selected,” Cindy Grines, MD, Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Lawrenceville, Georgia, said in an interview. “In the U.S., you don’t get those chest pain onset-to-reperfusion in 80 minutes. So that was really kind of shocking.”

It also suggests that early discharge was applied to patients who may have had minimal myocardial damage from the STEMI, she suggested. “Even in their own hospital system, a lot of patients who met the criteria on paper were kept longer than 48 hours. So a lot of it’s a judgment call.”

Additional red flags where physicians may overrule the early discharge protocol are very late perfusion, advanced age, severe renal insufficiency, profound anemia, cardiac arrest requiring more than brief resuscitation, bleeding complications, or symptomatic coronavirus, Dr. Grines and J. Jeffrey Marshall, MD, also from Northside, observe in an accompanying editorial.

About 60% of patients were suitable for the EHD pathway, Dr. Jones said. “Typically, they are quite low risk, but we still had four in 10 anterior infarct, and about 25% had left ventricular function between 40% and 45%. So even though the majority are low risk, there are patients in there that you would consider to have had a decent infarct.”

“I think this is applicable to patients at most centers, and probably anywhere between a third to a fifth of all patients presenting to heart centers would be suitable for this discharge pathway,” he said.

Dr. Grines said the pathway is “definitely feasible” but there aren’t enough patients studied to know with 100% certainty whether it’s safe. A single observational study also isn’t enough to change guidelines, which in the United States do not comment on length of stay.

“In the ultra-low-risk patients – such as the ones where you got them in very early and you almost aborted the infarct or if it was a very small infarct – you can kind of treat them like an unstable angina patient, where you can do the PCI and potentially discharge them in 24 hours,” Dr. Grines said. “I think most of us might agree on that.”

“The other thing you have to weigh is the risk/benefit ratio,” she said. “If you have no beds available, you end up rationing care to some extent. So if you have a patient that’s otherwise doing well after a very small MI and have an emergency room full of people that need to be admitted and they’re sicker, then you end up making those judgment calls.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that current guidelines are based largely on observational data and that the team is planning to pilot the EHD pathway at five to 10 centers around the United Kingdom or potentially in Europe or the United States.

“This is an area where a [randomized controlled trial] RCT would be expensive, whereas a well-coordinated multicenter registry would probably provide enough information to change guidelines,” he said. “We’re not suggesting that every STEMI patient is suitable, but people that are low risk that you would already be considering for early discharge I think can go a bit quicker.”

Dr. Jones has received funding from the Barts Charity and financial support for blood pressure machines from the Barts Guild. First author Krishnaraj Rathod has received funding from the National Institute for Health and Research in the form of an Academic Clinical Lectureship. All other authors, Dr. Grines, and Dr. Marshall report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Highly selected low-risk patients can be safely sent home about 24 hours after successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when supported by intense, multidisciplinary virtual follow-up, a prospective study suggests for the first time.

The risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in STEMI patients following an early hospital discharge (EHD) pathway was similar at 9 months to that seen for propensity-matched historic control subjects who met the same EHD criteria but were discharged later than 48 hours.

The stay in almost half (48%) the early discharge group was 24 hours or less, according to the study, published Dec. 13 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve shown that if we use appropriate risk criteria and instigate the appropriate, safe follow-up that it’s safe to select and discharge low-risk patients at an earlier time period, such as 24 hours,” senior author Daniel A. Jones, PhD, Barts Heart Centre, London, this news organization.

“Obviously, it’s one center in one city in the world,” he said. “Whether it’s applicable at other heart site centers, I believe it is, but I think we need more data to be able to change guidelines.”

Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines say that select patients should be considered for early discharge 48 to 72 hours after STEMI, but the COVID-19 pandemic incentivized the team to try and push that window.

“The COVID pandemic essentially brought a focus on resources, on minimizing the risk to our patient population in terms of catching COVID within hospital,” he said. “It became clear that to maintain the heart site service, we probably needed to get people out a bit quicker than we did before, so we came up with this pathway.”

Between March 2020 and June 2021, 600 patients presenting with STEMI were entered into the EHD pathway if they met the following pre-existing criteria for 48- to 72-hour discharge:

• Left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or greater
• Successful primary PCI with TIMI flow grade 3
• Absence of bystander disease requiring inpatient revascularization
• No recurrent ischemic symptoms
• No heart failure
• No significant arrhythmias
• No hemodynamic instability
• No significant comorbidity
• Suitable social circumstances for early discharge

The patients were given cardiac rehabilitation counseling over the phone within 48 hours and blood pressure machines if not available at home. At weeks 2 and 8, they spoke virtually with a dedicated cardiology advanced care practitioner who up-titrated medications and answered any questions. At week 12, they were seen by an interventional cardiologist or at a high-risk prevention clinic.

Their mean age was 59.2 years, 86% were male, the median symptom-to-balloon time was 80 minutes, and median door-to-balloon time was 50 minutes.

The early discharge patients were compared with 700 historic control subjects who met the EHD criteria and were discharged after 48 hours from Oct. 2018 to June 2021 and 560 patients discharged on standard-care pathways between April 2020 and June 2021.

Those discharged after 48 hours were more likely to have an anterior MI, multivessel disease, and multivessel PCI.
 

Comparable outcomes

The median length of stay was 24.6 hours (minimum 17 hours, maximum 40 hours) for the EHD group, 56.1 hours for historic control subjects, and 78.9 hours for the standard-care group.

The introduction of the EHD pathway significantly reduced the overall length of stay for all STEMI patients compared with the pre-pathway period of Oct. 2018 to March 2020 (median, 3 vs. 2 days; P < .0001).

Length of stay varied among patients; however, 420 patients stayed 1 less night in the hospital with the remaining patients staying about 8 to 12 fewer hours, resulting in approximate savings of £450,000, the authors note.

Over a median follow-up of 271 days, there were no cardiovascular deaths, two deaths from COVID-19, and a MACE rate of 1.2% (two deaths, three unscheduled revascularizations, and two further MI presentations) in the EHD group. That compares with a 0.7% mortality and 1.9% rate of MACE among historic control subjects, neither of which were significantly different.

There was also no difference in mortality (0.34% vs. 0.69%; P = .410) or MACE (1.2% vs. 1.9%; P = .342) among 560 pairs of propensity-matched EHD patients and historic control subjects.

Mortality was 4.1% in the standard-care group; cardiovascular mortality was 2.2%, and the rate of MACE was 8.6%.

When patients were surveyed, 85% were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the EHD pathway, whereas 73% of control and standard-care patients were satisfied with their care. Three-fourths of EHD patients also reported saving money and 62.5% saved time off work because of the virtual follow-up.
 

Judgment calls

“They didn’t really tell us much about the patients who didn’t qualify into this ultra–low-risk group but, obviously, it’s highly selected,” Cindy Grines, MD, Northside Hospital Cardiovascular Institute, Lawrenceville, Georgia, said in an interview. “In the U.S., you don’t get those chest pain onset-to-reperfusion in 80 minutes. So that was really kind of shocking.”

It also suggests that early discharge was applied to patients who may have had minimal myocardial damage from the STEMI, she suggested. “Even in their own hospital system, a lot of patients who met the criteria on paper were kept longer than 48 hours. So a lot of it’s a judgment call.”

Additional red flags where physicians may overrule the early discharge protocol are very late perfusion, advanced age, severe renal insufficiency, profound anemia, cardiac arrest requiring more than brief resuscitation, bleeding complications, or symptomatic coronavirus, Dr. Grines and J. Jeffrey Marshall, MD, also from Northside, observe in an accompanying editorial.

About 60% of patients were suitable for the EHD pathway, Dr. Jones said. “Typically, they are quite low risk, but we still had four in 10 anterior infarct, and about 25% had left ventricular function between 40% and 45%. So even though the majority are low risk, there are patients in there that you would consider to have had a decent infarct.”

“I think this is applicable to patients at most centers, and probably anywhere between a third to a fifth of all patients presenting to heart centers would be suitable for this discharge pathway,” he said.

Dr. Grines said the pathway is “definitely feasible” but there aren’t enough patients studied to know with 100% certainty whether it’s safe. A single observational study also isn’t enough to change guidelines, which in the United States do not comment on length of stay.

“In the ultra-low-risk patients – such as the ones where you got them in very early and you almost aborted the infarct or if it was a very small infarct – you can kind of treat them like an unstable angina patient, where you can do the PCI and potentially discharge them in 24 hours,” Dr. Grines said. “I think most of us might agree on that.”

“The other thing you have to weigh is the risk/benefit ratio,” she said. “If you have no beds available, you end up rationing care to some extent. So if you have a patient that’s otherwise doing well after a very small MI and have an emergency room full of people that need to be admitted and they’re sicker, then you end up making those judgment calls.”

Dr. Jones pointed out that current guidelines are based largely on observational data and that the team is planning to pilot the EHD pathway at five to 10 centers around the United Kingdom or potentially in Europe or the United States.

“This is an area where a [randomized controlled trial] RCT would be expensive, whereas a well-coordinated multicenter registry would probably provide enough information to change guidelines,” he said. “We’re not suggesting that every STEMI patient is suitable, but people that are low risk that you would already be considering for early discharge I think can go a bit quicker.”

Dr. Jones has received funding from the Barts Charity and financial support for blood pressure machines from the Barts Guild. First author Krishnaraj Rathod has received funding from the National Institute for Health and Research in the form of an Academic Clinical Lectureship. All other authors, Dr. Grines, and Dr. Marshall report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adult atopic dermatitis (AD) patients with sleep disorders had higher levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as a higher risk of developing adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.

“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”

To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.

The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).

To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”

Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).

“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.

Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”

“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”

Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.

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

Adult atopic dermatitis (AD) patients with sleep disorders had higher levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as a higher risk of developing adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.

“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”

To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.

The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).

To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”

Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).

“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.

Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”

“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”

Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.

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

Adult atopic dermatitis (AD) patients with sleep disorders had higher levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP), as well as a higher risk of developing adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality, results from a large cohort analysis showed.

“The implications of these findings are vast,” presenting author Varsha Parthasarathy said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “Poor sleep quality is known to be associated with increased inflammatory markers such as IL-6, IL-17, and CRP, so it is interesting to see this reflected in AD patients with versus without sleep disturbance. Additionally, we know that CRP is a driver of inflammation and is strongly associated with cardiovascular complications such as heart attack and stroke. Therefore, CRP may be a useful prognostic marker in AD patients with sleep disturbances.”

To examine the comorbidity burden of sleep disorders in AD patients and associate findings with inflammatory CRP and cardiovascular comorbidities, Mr. Parthasarathy, a medical student and itch fellow in the department of dermatology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues drew from TriNetX, a health care network of approximately 73 million de-identified medical records in 53 organizations. The years of study were 2015 to 2021. The researchers limited the analysis to adults with at least two instances of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L28 for AD, to capture a population with true AD. Controls were adults without AD who presented for general checkup and were matched to AD patients by age, race, and sex.

The study population consisted of 120,480 AD patients and matched controls. Their mean age was 36 years, 61% were female, and 26% were Black. Compared with controls, AD patients had an increased risk of developing general sleep disorders over the 6-year period (relative risk, 1.10), as well as obstructive sleep apnea (RR, 1.13), insomnia (RR, 1.10), hypersomnia (RR, 1.24), sleep-related movement disorders (RR, 1.36), restless legs syndrome (RR, 1.25), sleep deprivation (RR, 1.36), and unspecified sleep disorders (RR, 1.22).

To examine the association of sleep disturbance with the inflammatory biomarker CRP, the researchers measured CRP levels between these patient groups. They found a substantially higher CRP in AD patients compared with controls (21.2 mg/L vs. 7.6 mg/L, respectively; P < .0001). This finding “is suggestive of a higher level of inflammation in these patients,” Mr. Parthasarathy said. Interestingly, he added, they also found a higher CRP level in AD patients with sleep disturbances compared to AD patients without sleep disturbances (23.3 vs. 20.6 mg/L; P = .02), “also pointing to a higher inflammatory burden in AD patients whose sleep was affected.”

Compared to matched AD patients without sleep disorders, AD patients with sleep disorders were more likely to develop obesity (RR, 2.65), hyperlipidemia (RR, 2.18), type 2 diabetes (RR, 2.45), metabolic syndrome (RR, 4.16), atherosclerosis (RR, 2.42), peripheral vascular disease (RR, 2.47), stroke (RR, 2.37), venous thromboembolism (RR, 2.93), and mortality (hazard ratio, 1.24).

“There is a consequence of not treating patients with atopic dermatitis, especially those patients with sleep disturbance,” the study’s primary author, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, associate professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, told this news organization. “Chronic inflammation can lead to the development of comorbidities, so it is important to offer patients early treatment to reduce their overall inflammation.” He said that he was most surprised by the degree of increased inflammation in the blood of AD as compared to healthy controls. “This likely plays a part in the development of several comorbidities,” he said.

Mr. Parthasarathy acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the inability to infer causal relationships, as uncontrolled factors may be present. “Additionally, sampling of only patients that have had medical encounters limits the generalizability of the findings,” she said. “However, findings in this large cohort study suggest that clinicians should seek to identify sleep disorders in AD patients and screen for cardiac comorbidities secondary to inflammation in this patient population.”

“There is increased data to suggest that adults with AD, particularly those with more severe disease, may be at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the results from [this study] further support the concept of AD as systemic disease,” said Zelma C. Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was asked to comment on the study. She cited the large population-based, retrospective design and use of two instances of ICD codes for AD to confirm diagnosis as key strengths of the research. “However, it is unclear if for each patient CRP levels were measured at one single timepoint,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “For future studies, it would be interesting to see if these levels fluctuate with time and if persistently elevated levels are associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population. More data is needed to better understand the relationship better atopic dermatitis disease severity, impact on sleep, and how this relates to increased systemic inflammation and worse cardiovascular outcomes in this population.”

Dr. Kwatra disclosed support by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23AR077073-01A1 and previous funding by the Dermatology Foundation and Skin of Color Society. Dr. Kwatra is also an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed research grants from several pharmaceutical companies for work related to AD. She has also served as a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer.

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

Pheochromocytoma is a rare catecholamine-secreting tumor of chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla or sympathetic ganglia, occurring in about 0.2 to 0.5% of patients with hypertension.^1-3 However, in a review of 54 autopsy-proven cases of pheochromocytoma, about 50% of the patients with hypertension were not clinically suspected for pheochromocytoma.⁴

Pheochromocytoma is usually diagnosed based on symptoms of hyperadrenergic spells, resistant hypertension, especially in the young, with a pressor response to the anesthesia stress test and adrenal incidentaloma.

The classic triad of symptoms associated with pheochromocytoma includes episodic headache (90%), sweating (60-70%), and palpitations (70%).^2,5 Sustained or paroxysmal hypertension is the most common symptom reported in about 95% of patients with pheochromocytoma. Other symptoms include pallor, tremors, dyspnea, generalized weakness, orthostatic hypotension, cardiomyopathy, or hyperglycemia.⁶ However, about 10% of patients with pheochromocytoma are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Secondary causes of hypertension are usually suspected in multidrug resistant or sudden early onset of hypertension.⁸

Approximately 10% of catecholamine-secreting tumors are malignant.^9-11 Benign and malignant pheochromocytoma have a similar biochemical and histologic presentation and are differentiated based on local invasion into the surrounding tissues and organs (eg, kidney, liver) or distant metastasis.

A high index of suspicion is necessary during the workup of secondary hypertension as untreated pheochromocytoma may lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients who require surgical treatment.^4,12 Multiple cases of hypertensive crisis, pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock are reported in undiagnosed patients with pheochromocytoma undergoing both adrenal or nonadrenal surgery who were not medically prepared with α- and β-adrenergic antagonists and fluids before surgery.^13,14

A typical workup of a suspected patient with pheochromocytoma includes biochemical tests, including measurements of urinary and fractionated plasma metanephrines and catecholamine. Patients with positive biochemical tests should undergo localization of the tumor with an imaging study either with an adrenal/abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scan. If a patient has paraganglioma or an adrenal mass > 10 cm or negative abdominal imaging with a positive biochemical test, further imaging with an iobenguane I-123 scan is needed (Figure 1).

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male with a medical history of diabetes, hypertension, sensory neuropathy, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) status posttransurethral resection of the prostate, and chronic renal failure presented to establish care with the Arizona Kidney Disease and Hypertension Center. His medications included losartan 50 mg by mouth daily, diltiazem 180 mg extended-release by mouth daily, carvedilol 6.25 mg by mouth twice a day, and tamsulosin 0.4 mg by mouth daily. His presenting vitals were blood pressure (BP), 112/74 left arm sitting, pulse, 63/beats per min, and body mass index, 34. On physical examination, the patient was alert and oriented, and the chest was clear to auscultation without wheeze or rhonchi. On cardiac examination, heart rate and rhythm were regular; S1 and S2 were normal with no added murmurs, rubs or gallops, and no jugular venous distension. The abdomen was soft, nontender, with no palpable mass. His laboratory results showed sodium, 142 mmol/L; potassium, 5.3 mmol/L; chloride, 101 mmol/L; carbon dioxide, 24 mmol/L; albumin, 4.3 g/dL; creatinine, 1.89 mg/dL; blood urea nitrogen, 29 mg/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate non-African American, 35 mL/min/1.73; 24-h urine creatinine clearance, 105 mL/min; protein, 1306 mg/24 h (Table).

His renal ultrasound showed an exophytic isoechoic mass or complex cyst at the lateral aspect of the lower pole of the right kidney, measuring 45 mm in diameter. An MRI of the abdomen with and without contrast showed a solid partially exophytic mass of the posterolateral interpolar cortex of the right kidney, measuring 5.9 cm in the greatest dimension (Figure 2). No definite involvement of Gerota fascia was noted, a 1-cm metastasis to the right adrenal gland was present, renal veins were patent, and there was no upper retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy.

Treatment and Follow-up

The patient underwent right-hand-assisted lap-aroscopic radical nephrectomy and right adre-nalectomy without any complications. However, the surgical pathology report showed oncocytoma of the kidney (5.7 cm), pheochromocytoma of the adrenal gland (1.4 cm), and papillary adenoma of the kidney (0.7 cm). Right kidney nephrectomy showed non-neoplastic renal parenchyma, diabetic glomerulosclerosis (Renal Pathology Society 2010 diabetic nephropathy class IIb), severe mesangial expansion, moderate interstitial fibrosis, moderate arteriosclerosis, and mild arteriolosclerosis.

A fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan was significant for right nephrectomy and adrenalectomy and showed no significant evidence of residual neoplasm or local or distant metastases. A nuclear medicine (iobenguane I-123) tumor and single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan showed normal activity throughout the body and no evidence of abnormal activity (Figure 3).

Discussion

Pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of secondary hypertension. However, the real numbers are thought to be > 0.2 to 0.5%.^1,2,4 Patients with pheochromocytoma should undergo surgical adrenal resection after appropriate medical preparation. Patients with pheochromocytoma who are not diagnosed preoperatively have increased surgical mortality rates due to fatal hypertensive crises, malignant arrhythmia, and multiorgan failure as a result of hypertensive crisis.¹⁵ Anesthetic drugs during surgery also can exacerbate the cardiotoxic effects of catecholamines. Short-acting anesthetic agents, such as fentanyl, are used in patients with pheochromocytoma.¹⁶

This case of pheochromocytoma illustrated no classic symptoms of episodic headache, sweating, and tachycardia, and the patient was otherwise asymptomatic. BP was well controlled with losartan, diltiazem, and a β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol). As the patient was not known to have pheochromocytoma, he did not undergo preoperative medical therapy. Figure 4 illustrates the receptors stimulate catecholamines, and the drugs blocking these receptors prevent hypertensive crisis during surgery. However, the surgery was without potential complications (ie, hypertensive crisis, malignant arrhythmia, or multiorgan failure). The patient was diagnosed incidentally on histopathology after right radical nephrectomy and adrenalectomy due to solid partially exophytic right renal mass (5.9 cm) with right adrenal metastasis. About 10% of patients are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Sometimes, the symptoms may be ignored because of the episodic nature. Other possible reasons can be small, nonfunctional tumors or the use of antihypertensive medications suppressing the symptoms.⁷

The adrenal mass that was initially thought to be a metastasis of right kidney mass was later confirmed as pheochromocytoma. One possible explanation for uneventful surgery could be the use of β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol), α-1 adrenergic blocker (tamsulosin) along with nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) as part of the patient’s antihypertensive and BPH medication regimen. Another possible explanation could be silent or episodically secreting pheochromocytoma with a small functional portion.

Conclusions

Asymptomatic pheochromocytoma is an unusual but serious condition, especially for patients undergoing a surgical procedure. An adrenal mass may be ignored in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic older adult patients and is mostly considered as adrenal metastasis when present with other malignancies. Fortunately, the nephrectomy and adrenalectomy in our case of asymptomatic pheochromocytoma was uneventful, but pheochromocytoma should be ruled out before a surgical procedure, as an absence of medical pretreatment can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, we suggest a more careful screening of pheochromocytoma in patients with an adrenal mass (primary or metastatic) and hypertension treated with multiple antihypertensive drugs, even in older adult patients.

Pheochromocytoma is a rare catecholamine-secreting tumor of chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla or sympathetic ganglia, occurring in about 0.2 to 0.5% of patients with hypertension.^1-3 However, in a review of 54 autopsy-proven cases of pheochromocytoma, about 50% of the patients with hypertension were not clinically suspected for pheochromocytoma.⁴

Pheochromocytoma is usually diagnosed based on symptoms of hyperadrenergic spells, resistant hypertension, especially in the young, with a pressor response to the anesthesia stress test and adrenal incidentaloma.

The classic triad of symptoms associated with pheochromocytoma includes episodic headache (90%), sweating (60-70%), and palpitations (70%).^2,5 Sustained or paroxysmal hypertension is the most common symptom reported in about 95% of patients with pheochromocytoma. Other symptoms include pallor, tremors, dyspnea, generalized weakness, orthostatic hypotension, cardiomyopathy, or hyperglycemia.⁶ However, about 10% of patients with pheochromocytoma are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Secondary causes of hypertension are usually suspected in multidrug resistant or sudden early onset of hypertension.⁸

Approximately 10% of catecholamine-secreting tumors are malignant.^9-11 Benign and malignant pheochromocytoma have a similar biochemical and histologic presentation and are differentiated based on local invasion into the surrounding tissues and organs (eg, kidney, liver) or distant metastasis.

A high index of suspicion is necessary during the workup of secondary hypertension as untreated pheochromocytoma may lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients who require surgical treatment.^4,12 Multiple cases of hypertensive crisis, pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock are reported in undiagnosed patients with pheochromocytoma undergoing both adrenal or nonadrenal surgery who were not medically prepared with α- and β-adrenergic antagonists and fluids before surgery.^13,14

A typical workup of a suspected patient with pheochromocytoma includes biochemical tests, including measurements of urinary and fractionated plasma metanephrines and catecholamine. Patients with positive biochemical tests should undergo localization of the tumor with an imaging study either with an adrenal/abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scan. If a patient has paraganglioma or an adrenal mass > 10 cm or negative abdominal imaging with a positive biochemical test, further imaging with an iobenguane I-123 scan is needed (Figure 1).

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male with a medical history of diabetes, hypertension, sensory neuropathy, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) status posttransurethral resection of the prostate, and chronic renal failure presented to establish care with the Arizona Kidney Disease and Hypertension Center. His medications included losartan 50 mg by mouth daily, diltiazem 180 mg extended-release by mouth daily, carvedilol 6.25 mg by mouth twice a day, and tamsulosin 0.4 mg by mouth daily. His presenting vitals were blood pressure (BP), 112/74 left arm sitting, pulse, 63/beats per min, and body mass index, 34. On physical examination, the patient was alert and oriented, and the chest was clear to auscultation without wheeze or rhonchi. On cardiac examination, heart rate and rhythm were regular; S1 and S2 were normal with no added murmurs, rubs or gallops, and no jugular venous distension. The abdomen was soft, nontender, with no palpable mass. His laboratory results showed sodium, 142 mmol/L; potassium, 5.3 mmol/L; chloride, 101 mmol/L; carbon dioxide, 24 mmol/L; albumin, 4.3 g/dL; creatinine, 1.89 mg/dL; blood urea nitrogen, 29 mg/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate non-African American, 35 mL/min/1.73; 24-h urine creatinine clearance, 105 mL/min; protein, 1306 mg/24 h (Table).

His renal ultrasound showed an exophytic isoechoic mass or complex cyst at the lateral aspect of the lower pole of the right kidney, measuring 45 mm in diameter. An MRI of the abdomen with and without contrast showed a solid partially exophytic mass of the posterolateral interpolar cortex of the right kidney, measuring 5.9 cm in the greatest dimension (Figure 2). No definite involvement of Gerota fascia was noted, a 1-cm metastasis to the right adrenal gland was present, renal veins were patent, and there was no upper retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy.

Treatment and Follow-up

The patient underwent right-hand-assisted lap-aroscopic radical nephrectomy and right adre-nalectomy without any complications. However, the surgical pathology report showed oncocytoma of the kidney (5.7 cm), pheochromocytoma of the adrenal gland (1.4 cm), and papillary adenoma of the kidney (0.7 cm). Right kidney nephrectomy showed non-neoplastic renal parenchyma, diabetic glomerulosclerosis (Renal Pathology Society 2010 diabetic nephropathy class IIb), severe mesangial expansion, moderate interstitial fibrosis, moderate arteriosclerosis, and mild arteriolosclerosis.

A fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan was significant for right nephrectomy and adrenalectomy and showed no significant evidence of residual neoplasm or local or distant metastases. A nuclear medicine (iobenguane I-123) tumor and single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan showed normal activity throughout the body and no evidence of abnormal activity (Figure 3).

Discussion

Pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of secondary hypertension. However, the real numbers are thought to be > 0.2 to 0.5%.^1,2,4 Patients with pheochromocytoma should undergo surgical adrenal resection after appropriate medical preparation. Patients with pheochromocytoma who are not diagnosed preoperatively have increased surgical mortality rates due to fatal hypertensive crises, malignant arrhythmia, and multiorgan failure as a result of hypertensive crisis.¹⁵ Anesthetic drugs during surgery also can exacerbate the cardiotoxic effects of catecholamines. Short-acting anesthetic agents, such as fentanyl, are used in patients with pheochromocytoma.¹⁶

This case of pheochromocytoma illustrated no classic symptoms of episodic headache, sweating, and tachycardia, and the patient was otherwise asymptomatic. BP was well controlled with losartan, diltiazem, and a β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol). As the patient was not known to have pheochromocytoma, he did not undergo preoperative medical therapy. Figure 4 illustrates the receptors stimulate catecholamines, and the drugs blocking these receptors prevent hypertensive crisis during surgery. However, the surgery was without potential complications (ie, hypertensive crisis, malignant arrhythmia, or multiorgan failure). The patient was diagnosed incidentally on histopathology after right radical nephrectomy and adrenalectomy due to solid partially exophytic right renal mass (5.9 cm) with right adrenal metastasis. About 10% of patients are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Sometimes, the symptoms may be ignored because of the episodic nature. Other possible reasons can be small, nonfunctional tumors or the use of antihypertensive medications suppressing the symptoms.⁷

The adrenal mass that was initially thought to be a metastasis of right kidney mass was later confirmed as pheochromocytoma. One possible explanation for uneventful surgery could be the use of β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol), α-1 adrenergic blocker (tamsulosin) along with nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) as part of the patient’s antihypertensive and BPH medication regimen. Another possible explanation could be silent or episodically secreting pheochromocytoma with a small functional portion.

Conclusions

Asymptomatic pheochromocytoma is an unusual but serious condition, especially for patients undergoing a surgical procedure. An adrenal mass may be ignored in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic older adult patients and is mostly considered as adrenal metastasis when present with other malignancies. Fortunately, the nephrectomy and adrenalectomy in our case of asymptomatic pheochromocytoma was uneventful, but pheochromocytoma should be ruled out before a surgical procedure, as an absence of medical pretreatment can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, we suggest a more careful screening of pheochromocytoma in patients with an adrenal mass (primary or metastatic) and hypertension treated with multiple antihypertensive drugs, even in older adult patients.

Pheochromocytoma is a rare catecholamine-secreting tumor of chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla or sympathetic ganglia, occurring in about 0.2 to 0.5% of patients with hypertension.^1-3 However, in a review of 54 autopsy-proven cases of pheochromocytoma, about 50% of the patients with hypertension were not clinically suspected for pheochromocytoma.⁴

Pheochromocytoma is usually diagnosed based on symptoms of hyperadrenergic spells, resistant hypertension, especially in the young, with a pressor response to the anesthesia stress test and adrenal incidentaloma.

The classic triad of symptoms associated with pheochromocytoma includes episodic headache (90%), sweating (60-70%), and palpitations (70%).^2,5 Sustained or paroxysmal hypertension is the most common symptom reported in about 95% of patients with pheochromocytoma. Other symptoms include pallor, tremors, dyspnea, generalized weakness, orthostatic hypotension, cardiomyopathy, or hyperglycemia.⁶ However, about 10% of patients with pheochromocytoma are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Secondary causes of hypertension are usually suspected in multidrug resistant or sudden early onset of hypertension.⁸

Approximately 10% of catecholamine-secreting tumors are malignant.^9-11 Benign and malignant pheochromocytoma have a similar biochemical and histologic presentation and are differentiated based on local invasion into the surrounding tissues and organs (eg, kidney, liver) or distant metastasis.

A high index of suspicion is necessary during the workup of secondary hypertension as untreated pheochromocytoma may lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in patients who require surgical treatment.^4,12 Multiple cases of hypertensive crisis, pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock are reported in undiagnosed patients with pheochromocytoma undergoing both adrenal or nonadrenal surgery who were not medically prepared with α- and β-adrenergic antagonists and fluids before surgery.^13,14

A typical workup of a suspected patient with pheochromocytoma includes biochemical tests, including measurements of urinary and fractionated plasma metanephrines and catecholamine. Patients with positive biochemical tests should undergo localization of the tumor with an imaging study either with an adrenal/abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scan. If a patient has paraganglioma or an adrenal mass > 10 cm or negative abdominal imaging with a positive biochemical test, further imaging with an iobenguane I-123 scan is needed (Figure 1).

Case Presentation

A 72-year-old male with a medical history of diabetes, hypertension, sensory neuropathy, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) status posttransurethral resection of the prostate, and chronic renal failure presented to establish care with the Arizona Kidney Disease and Hypertension Center. His medications included losartan 50 mg by mouth daily, diltiazem 180 mg extended-release by mouth daily, carvedilol 6.25 mg by mouth twice a day, and tamsulosin 0.4 mg by mouth daily. His presenting vitals were blood pressure (BP), 112/74 left arm sitting, pulse, 63/beats per min, and body mass index, 34. On physical examination, the patient was alert and oriented, and the chest was clear to auscultation without wheeze or rhonchi. On cardiac examination, heart rate and rhythm were regular; S1 and S2 were normal with no added murmurs, rubs or gallops, and no jugular venous distension. The abdomen was soft, nontender, with no palpable mass. His laboratory results showed sodium, 142 mmol/L; potassium, 5.3 mmol/L; chloride, 101 mmol/L; carbon dioxide, 24 mmol/L; albumin, 4.3 g/dL; creatinine, 1.89 mg/dL; blood urea nitrogen, 29 mg/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate non-African American, 35 mL/min/1.73; 24-h urine creatinine clearance, 105 mL/min; protein, 1306 mg/24 h (Table).

His renal ultrasound showed an exophytic isoechoic mass or complex cyst at the lateral aspect of the lower pole of the right kidney, measuring 45 mm in diameter. An MRI of the abdomen with and without contrast showed a solid partially exophytic mass of the posterolateral interpolar cortex of the right kidney, measuring 5.9 cm in the greatest dimension (Figure 2). No definite involvement of Gerota fascia was noted, a 1-cm metastasis to the right adrenal gland was present, renal veins were patent, and there was no upper retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy.

Treatment and Follow-up

The patient underwent right-hand-assisted lap-aroscopic radical nephrectomy and right adre-nalectomy without any complications. However, the surgical pathology report showed oncocytoma of the kidney (5.7 cm), pheochromocytoma of the adrenal gland (1.4 cm), and papillary adenoma of the kidney (0.7 cm). Right kidney nephrectomy showed non-neoplastic renal parenchyma, diabetic glomerulosclerosis (Renal Pathology Society 2010 diabetic nephropathy class IIb), severe mesangial expansion, moderate interstitial fibrosis, moderate arteriosclerosis, and mild arteriolosclerosis.

A fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan was significant for right nephrectomy and adrenalectomy and showed no significant evidence of residual neoplasm or local or distant metastases. A nuclear medicine (iobenguane I-123) tumor and single positron emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan showed normal activity throughout the body and no evidence of abnormal activity (Figure 3).

Discussion

Pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of secondary hypertension. However, the real numbers are thought to be > 0.2 to 0.5%.^1,2,4 Patients with pheochromocytoma should undergo surgical adrenal resection after appropriate medical preparation. Patients with pheochromocytoma who are not diagnosed preoperatively have increased surgical mortality rates due to fatal hypertensive crises, malignant arrhythmia, and multiorgan failure as a result of hypertensive crisis.¹⁵ Anesthetic drugs during surgery also can exacerbate the cardiotoxic effects of catecholamines. Short-acting anesthetic agents, such as fentanyl, are used in patients with pheochromocytoma.¹⁶

This case of pheochromocytoma illustrated no classic symptoms of episodic headache, sweating, and tachycardia, and the patient was otherwise asymptomatic. BP was well controlled with losartan, diltiazem, and a β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol). As the patient was not known to have pheochromocytoma, he did not undergo preoperative medical therapy. Figure 4 illustrates the receptors stimulate catecholamines, and the drugs blocking these receptors prevent hypertensive crisis during surgery. However, the surgery was without potential complications (ie, hypertensive crisis, malignant arrhythmia, or multiorgan failure). The patient was diagnosed incidentally on histopathology after right radical nephrectomy and adrenalectomy due to solid partially exophytic right renal mass (5.9 cm) with right adrenal metastasis. About 10% of patients are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic.⁷ Sometimes, the symptoms may be ignored because of the episodic nature. Other possible reasons can be small, nonfunctional tumors or the use of antihypertensive medications suppressing the symptoms.⁷

The adrenal mass that was initially thought to be a metastasis of right kidney mass was later confirmed as pheochromocytoma. One possible explanation for uneventful surgery could be the use of β-blocker with α-blocking activity (carvedilol), α-1 adrenergic blocker (tamsulosin) along with nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (diltiazem) as part of the patient’s antihypertensive and BPH medication regimen. Another possible explanation could be silent or episodically secreting pheochromocytoma with a small functional portion.

Conclusions

Asymptomatic pheochromocytoma is an unusual but serious condition, especially for patients undergoing a surgical procedure. An adrenal mass may be ignored in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic older adult patients and is mostly considered as adrenal metastasis when present with other malignancies. Fortunately, the nephrectomy and adrenalectomy in our case of asymptomatic pheochromocytoma was uneventful, but pheochromocytoma should be ruled out before a surgical procedure, as an absence of medical pretreatment can lead to serious consequences. Therefore, we suggest a more careful screening of pheochromocytoma in patients with an adrenal mass (primary or metastatic) and hypertension treated with multiple antihypertensive drugs, even in older adult patients.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Yoga added to conventional therapy for vasovagal syncope (VVS), when patients faint after a sudden drop in heart rate and blood pressure, can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life, new research suggests. 

AndiP/pixabay.com

A small, open-label trial conducted in New Delhi showed that participants practicing yoga reported an improvement in VVS symptoms after only 6 weeks, with a reduction of 1.82 events at 12 months. All those practicing yoga also showed significantly improved quality of life (QoL) scores by the end of the trial.

“Yoga as add-on therapy in VVS is superior to medical therapy in reducing syncopal and presyncopal events and in improving the QoL,” report Gautam Sharma, MD, DM, Centre for Integrative Medicine and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and colleagues. “It may be useful to integrate a cost-effective and safe intervention such as yoga into the management of VVS.”

Results of the LIVE-Yoga study were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Vasovagal syncope is a common and non–life-threatening condition, but given the severity and frequency of recurrence it can result in significant deterioration in a patient’s quality of life, the authors note. “Existing management therapies have been largely ineffective,” they write.

Recent trials have suggested some efficacy for yoga in diseases of autonomic imbalance, suggesting a possible use in VVS. To find out, the researchers enrolled adults with VVS between the ages of 15-70 years who had a positive head-up tilt test (HUTT) and at least two syncope or presyncope events within 3 months of enrollment. They also needed to be willing and able to practice yoga. Those with structural heart disease, accelerated hypertension, and underlying neurologic disorders were not included in the study.

A total of 55 patients were randomly assigned to receive either a specialized yoga training program in addition to guideline-based therapy, or guideline-based therapy alone. Standard care included physical counterpressure maneuvers, avoidance of known triggers, increased salt and water intake, and drug therapy or pacing at the discretion of the treating physician.

The primary outcome was a composite of the number of episodes of syncope and presyncope at 12 months.    

Secondary outcomes including QoL, assessed using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Field questionnaire (WHOQoL-BREF) and the Syncope Functional Status Questionnaire (SFSQ) at 12 months, a head-up tilt test, and heart rate variability at 6 weeks.

For the first 2 weeks, patients in the intervention group were enrolled in eight supervised yoga sessions conducted at the Centre for Integrative Medicine and Research at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. For the remainder of the trial, they continued a daily yoga practice at home at least 5 days a week.

The yoga module created for participants was designed with a view to the pathophysiology of VVS and featured postures, breathing, and relaxation techniques. Yoga classes were taught by qualified therapists under the guidance of physicians.

In addition to a booklet with a pictorial of the yoga regimen, participants received twice-monthly calls from the yoga center to encourage compliance. Results show that all participants adhered to their yoga routine for more than 80% of the 12-month trial.

At 12 months, the mean number of syncopal or presyncopal events was 0.7 ± 0.7 with the yoga intervention versus 2.52 ± 1.93 among patients in the control arm (P < .05). The reduction in events started as early as 6 weeks and continued to separate out to 12 months, the researchers note.

Thirteen of 30 (43.3%) intervention patients and 4 of 25 (16%) control patients remained event-free at 12 months, a statistically significant difference (P = .02). There was a trend toward fewer positive head-up tilt tests between groups that did not reach significance, and there was no difference in heart rate variability at 6 weeks.

No adverse events as a result of the yoga practice were reported, and no patient started drug therapy or received pacing therapy during the trial, they note.

The researchers point out that yoga postures can enhance vascular and muscle tone, especially in the lower limbs.

“Yoga breathing and relaxation techniques have been shown to increase vagal tone and improve autonomic balance, which could potentially curtail the sympathetic overdrive phase and interrupt the activation of the c-mechanoreceptors, which is a critical step in the syncope cascade,” they note.

“We postulate that positive effects of yoga in this study could be related to a multidimensional effect of this intervention acting through both central and peripheral mechanisms, including physical, psychological, and autonomic pathways,” the authors conclude.
 

Comprehensive regimen

Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, Kansas, says these results are in line with previous research indicating the benefits of yoga in improving cardiovascular function.

“All of this clearly shows that when you [include] a systematic diet of yoga for a reasonable amount of time to improve the plasticity of parasympathetic inputs into the chest and thereby the cardiovascular system ... you can help patients to improve their symptoms,” he said in an interview.  

He already prescribes yoga in his own practice as part of a comprehensive therapeutic regimen, he said. “We have a handful of practitioners all around the city who work with us,” Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Both he and the study authors point the economic burden of VVS both in management and in loss of patient productivity. “A low-cost intervention in the form of yoga, which essentially requires only a mat, can reduce both direct and indirect costs significantly,” note the authors.

The trial was supported under the extramural research (EMR) scheme by the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Yoga added to conventional therapy for vasovagal syncope (VVS), when patients faint after a sudden drop in heart rate and blood pressure, can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life, new research suggests. 

AndiP/pixabay.com

A small, open-label trial conducted in New Delhi showed that participants practicing yoga reported an improvement in VVS symptoms after only 6 weeks, with a reduction of 1.82 events at 12 months. All those practicing yoga also showed significantly improved quality of life (QoL) scores by the end of the trial.

“Yoga as add-on therapy in VVS is superior to medical therapy in reducing syncopal and presyncopal events and in improving the QoL,” report Gautam Sharma, MD, DM, Centre for Integrative Medicine and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and colleagues. “It may be useful to integrate a cost-effective and safe intervention such as yoga into the management of VVS.”

Results of the LIVE-Yoga study were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Vasovagal syncope is a common and non–life-threatening condition, but given the severity and frequency of recurrence it can result in significant deterioration in a patient’s quality of life, the authors note. “Existing management therapies have been largely ineffective,” they write.

Recent trials have suggested some efficacy for yoga in diseases of autonomic imbalance, suggesting a possible use in VVS. To find out, the researchers enrolled adults with VVS between the ages of 15-70 years who had a positive head-up tilt test (HUTT) and at least two syncope or presyncope events within 3 months of enrollment. They also needed to be willing and able to practice yoga. Those with structural heart disease, accelerated hypertension, and underlying neurologic disorders were not included in the study.

A total of 55 patients were randomly assigned to receive either a specialized yoga training program in addition to guideline-based therapy, or guideline-based therapy alone. Standard care included physical counterpressure maneuvers, avoidance of known triggers, increased salt and water intake, and drug therapy or pacing at the discretion of the treating physician.

The primary outcome was a composite of the number of episodes of syncope and presyncope at 12 months.    

Secondary outcomes including QoL, assessed using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Field questionnaire (WHOQoL-BREF) and the Syncope Functional Status Questionnaire (SFSQ) at 12 months, a head-up tilt test, and heart rate variability at 6 weeks.

For the first 2 weeks, patients in the intervention group were enrolled in eight supervised yoga sessions conducted at the Centre for Integrative Medicine and Research at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. For the remainder of the trial, they continued a daily yoga practice at home at least 5 days a week.

The yoga module created for participants was designed with a view to the pathophysiology of VVS and featured postures, breathing, and relaxation techniques. Yoga classes were taught by qualified therapists under the guidance of physicians.

In addition to a booklet with a pictorial of the yoga regimen, participants received twice-monthly calls from the yoga center to encourage compliance. Results show that all participants adhered to their yoga routine for more than 80% of the 12-month trial.

At 12 months, the mean number of syncopal or presyncopal events was 0.7 ± 0.7 with the yoga intervention versus 2.52 ± 1.93 among patients in the control arm (P < .05). The reduction in events started as early as 6 weeks and continued to separate out to 12 months, the researchers note.

Thirteen of 30 (43.3%) intervention patients and 4 of 25 (16%) control patients remained event-free at 12 months, a statistically significant difference (P = .02). There was a trend toward fewer positive head-up tilt tests between groups that did not reach significance, and there was no difference in heart rate variability at 6 weeks.

No adverse events as a result of the yoga practice were reported, and no patient started drug therapy or received pacing therapy during the trial, they note.

The researchers point out that yoga postures can enhance vascular and muscle tone, especially in the lower limbs.

“Yoga breathing and relaxation techniques have been shown to increase vagal tone and improve autonomic balance, which could potentially curtail the sympathetic overdrive phase and interrupt the activation of the c-mechanoreceptors, which is a critical step in the syncope cascade,” they note.

“We postulate that positive effects of yoga in this study could be related to a multidimensional effect of this intervention acting through both central and peripheral mechanisms, including physical, psychological, and autonomic pathways,” the authors conclude.
 

Comprehensive regimen

Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, Kansas, says these results are in line with previous research indicating the benefits of yoga in improving cardiovascular function.

“All of this clearly shows that when you [include] a systematic diet of yoga for a reasonable amount of time to improve the plasticity of parasympathetic inputs into the chest and thereby the cardiovascular system ... you can help patients to improve their symptoms,” he said in an interview.  

He already prescribes yoga in his own practice as part of a comprehensive therapeutic regimen, he said. “We have a handful of practitioners all around the city who work with us,” Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Both he and the study authors point the economic burden of VVS both in management and in loss of patient productivity. “A low-cost intervention in the form of yoga, which essentially requires only a mat, can reduce both direct and indirect costs significantly,” note the authors.

The trial was supported under the extramural research (EMR) scheme by the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Yoga added to conventional therapy for vasovagal syncope (VVS), when patients faint after a sudden drop in heart rate and blood pressure, can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life, new research suggests. 

AndiP/pixabay.com

A small, open-label trial conducted in New Delhi showed that participants practicing yoga reported an improvement in VVS symptoms after only 6 weeks, with a reduction of 1.82 events at 12 months. All those practicing yoga also showed significantly improved quality of life (QoL) scores by the end of the trial.

“Yoga as add-on therapy in VVS is superior to medical therapy in reducing syncopal and presyncopal events and in improving the QoL,” report Gautam Sharma, MD, DM, Centre for Integrative Medicine and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and colleagues. “It may be useful to integrate a cost-effective and safe intervention such as yoga into the management of VVS.”

Results of the LIVE-Yoga study were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Vasovagal syncope is a common and non–life-threatening condition, but given the severity and frequency of recurrence it can result in significant deterioration in a patient’s quality of life, the authors note. “Existing management therapies have been largely ineffective,” they write.

Recent trials have suggested some efficacy for yoga in diseases of autonomic imbalance, suggesting a possible use in VVS. To find out, the researchers enrolled adults with VVS between the ages of 15-70 years who had a positive head-up tilt test (HUTT) and at least two syncope or presyncope events within 3 months of enrollment. They also needed to be willing and able to practice yoga. Those with structural heart disease, accelerated hypertension, and underlying neurologic disorders were not included in the study.

A total of 55 patients were randomly assigned to receive either a specialized yoga training program in addition to guideline-based therapy, or guideline-based therapy alone. Standard care included physical counterpressure maneuvers, avoidance of known triggers, increased salt and water intake, and drug therapy or pacing at the discretion of the treating physician.

The primary outcome was a composite of the number of episodes of syncope and presyncope at 12 months.    

Secondary outcomes including QoL, assessed using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Field questionnaire (WHOQoL-BREF) and the Syncope Functional Status Questionnaire (SFSQ) at 12 months, a head-up tilt test, and heart rate variability at 6 weeks.

For the first 2 weeks, patients in the intervention group were enrolled in eight supervised yoga sessions conducted at the Centre for Integrative Medicine and Research at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. For the remainder of the trial, they continued a daily yoga practice at home at least 5 days a week.

The yoga module created for participants was designed with a view to the pathophysiology of VVS and featured postures, breathing, and relaxation techniques. Yoga classes were taught by qualified therapists under the guidance of physicians.

In addition to a booklet with a pictorial of the yoga regimen, participants received twice-monthly calls from the yoga center to encourage compliance. Results show that all participants adhered to their yoga routine for more than 80% of the 12-month trial.

At 12 months, the mean number of syncopal or presyncopal events was 0.7 ± 0.7 with the yoga intervention versus 2.52 ± 1.93 among patients in the control arm (P < .05). The reduction in events started as early as 6 weeks and continued to separate out to 12 months, the researchers note.

Thirteen of 30 (43.3%) intervention patients and 4 of 25 (16%) control patients remained event-free at 12 months, a statistically significant difference (P = .02). There was a trend toward fewer positive head-up tilt tests between groups that did not reach significance, and there was no difference in heart rate variability at 6 weeks.

No adverse events as a result of the yoga practice were reported, and no patient started drug therapy or received pacing therapy during the trial, they note.

The researchers point out that yoga postures can enhance vascular and muscle tone, especially in the lower limbs.

“Yoga breathing and relaxation techniques have been shown to increase vagal tone and improve autonomic balance, which could potentially curtail the sympathetic overdrive phase and interrupt the activation of the c-mechanoreceptors, which is a critical step in the syncope cascade,” they note.

“We postulate that positive effects of yoga in this study could be related to a multidimensional effect of this intervention acting through both central and peripheral mechanisms, including physical, psychological, and autonomic pathways,” the authors conclude.
 

Comprehensive regimen

Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, Kansas, says these results are in line with previous research indicating the benefits of yoga in improving cardiovascular function.

“All of this clearly shows that when you [include] a systematic diet of yoga for a reasonable amount of time to improve the plasticity of parasympathetic inputs into the chest and thereby the cardiovascular system ... you can help patients to improve their symptoms,” he said in an interview.  

He already prescribes yoga in his own practice as part of a comprehensive therapeutic regimen, he said. “We have a handful of practitioners all around the city who work with us,” Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Both he and the study authors point the economic burden of VVS both in management and in loss of patient productivity. “A low-cost intervention in the form of yoga, which essentially requires only a mat, can reduce both direct and indirect costs significantly,” note the authors.

The trial was supported under the extramural research (EMR) scheme by the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: The standard of care for IE has been a prolonged course of IV antibiotics. Recent literature has suggested that oral antibiotics might be a safe and effective step-down therapy for IE.

In studies wherein IV antibiotics alone were compared with IV antibiotics with oral step-down therapy, there was no difference in clinical cure rate. Those given oral step-down therapy had a statistically significant lower mortality rate than patients who received only IV therapy.

Limitations include inconclusive data regarding duration of IV lead-in therapy, with the variance before conversion to oral antibiotics amongst the studies ranging from 0 to 24 days. The limited number of patients with MRSA infections makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding this particular pathogen.

Bottom line: Highly orally bioavailable antibiotics should be considered for patients with IE who have cleared bacteremia and achieved clinical stability with IV regimens.

Citation: Spellberg B et al. Evaluation of a paradigm shift from intravenous antibiotics to oral step-down therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis: a narrative review. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(5):769-77. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0555.

Dr. Yoo is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: The standard of care for IE has been a prolonged course of IV antibiotics. Recent literature has suggested that oral antibiotics might be a safe and effective step-down therapy for IE.

In studies wherein IV antibiotics alone were compared with IV antibiotics with oral step-down therapy, there was no difference in clinical cure rate. Those given oral step-down therapy had a statistically significant lower mortality rate than patients who received only IV therapy.

Limitations include inconclusive data regarding duration of IV lead-in therapy, with the variance before conversion to oral antibiotics amongst the studies ranging from 0 to 24 days. The limited number of patients with MRSA infections makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding this particular pathogen.

Bottom line: Highly orally bioavailable antibiotics should be considered for patients with IE who have cleared bacteremia and achieved clinical stability with IV regimens.

Citation: Spellberg B et al. Evaluation of a paradigm shift from intravenous antibiotics to oral step-down therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis: a narrative review. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(5):769-77. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0555.

Dr. Yoo is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

Background: The standard of care for IE has been a prolonged course of IV antibiotics. Recent literature has suggested that oral antibiotics might be a safe and effective step-down therapy for IE.

In studies wherein IV antibiotics alone were compared with IV antibiotics with oral step-down therapy, there was no difference in clinical cure rate. Those given oral step-down therapy had a statistically significant lower mortality rate than patients who received only IV therapy.

Limitations include inconclusive data regarding duration of IV lead-in therapy, with the variance before conversion to oral antibiotics amongst the studies ranging from 0 to 24 days. The limited number of patients with MRSA infections makes it difficult to draw conclusions regarding this particular pathogen.

Bottom line: Highly orally bioavailable antibiotics should be considered for patients with IE who have cleared bacteremia and achieved clinical stability with IV regimens.

Citation: Spellberg B et al. Evaluation of a paradigm shift from intravenous antibiotics to oral step-down therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis: a narrative review. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(5):769-77. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0555.

Dr. Yoo is a hospitalist in the Division of Hospital Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

The recent Practice Alert by Dr. Campos-Outcalt, “How to proceed when it comes to vitamin D” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:289-292) claimed that the value of vitamin D supplements for prevention is nil or still unknown.¹ Most of the references cited in support of this statement were centered on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on vitamin D dose rather than achieved 25-­hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration. Since the health effects of vitamin D supplementation are correlated with 25(OH)D concentration, the latter should be used to evaluate the results of vitamin D RCTs—a point I made in my 2018 article on the topic.²

For example, in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study, in which participants in the treatment arm received 4000 IU/d vitamin D₃, there was no reduced rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes. However, when 25(OH)D concentrations were analyzed for those in the vitamin D arm during the trial, the risk was found to be reduced by 25% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82) per 10 ng/mL increase in 25(OH)D.³

There are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Another trial, the Harvard-led VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL), enrolled more than 25,000 participants, with the treatment arm receiving 2000 IU/d vitamin D₃.⁴ There were no significant reductions in incidence of either cancer or cardiovascular disease for the entire group. The mean baseline 25(OH)D concentration for those for whom values were provided was 31 ng/mL (32.2 ng/mL for White participants, 24.9 ng/mL for Black participants). However, there were ~25% reductions in cancer risk among Black participants (who had lower 25(OH)D concentrations than White participants) and those with a body mass index < 25. A posthoc analysis suggested a possible benefit related to the rate of total cancer deaths.

A recent article reported the results of long-term vitamin D supplementation among Veterans Health Administration patients who had an initial 25(OH)D concentration of < 20 ng/mL.⁵ For those who were treated with vitamin D and achieved a 25(OH)D concentration of > 30 ng/mL (compared to those who were untreated and had an average concentration of < 20 ng/mL), the risk of myocardial infarction was 27% lower (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96) and the risk of all-cause mortality was reduced by 39% (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67).

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positivity examined data for more than 190,000 patients in the United States who had serum 25(OH)D concentration measurements taken up to 1 year prior to their SARS-CoV-2 test. Positivity rates were 12.5% (95% CI, 12.2%-12.8%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration < 20 ng/mL vs 5.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-6.4%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration ≥55 ng/mL.⁶

Thus, there are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Continue to: Author's Response

Author's response

I appreciate the letter from Dr. Grant in response to my previous Practice Alert, as it provides an opportunity to make some important points about assessment of scientific evidence and drawing conclusions based on sound methodology. There is an overabundance of scientific literature published, much of which is of questionable quality, meaning a “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) published a series of recommendations on how trustworthy recommendations and guidelines should be produced.^1,2 Key among the steps recommended is a full assessment of the totality of the literature on the subject by an independent, nonconflicted panel. This should be based on a systematic review that includes standard search methods to find all pertinent articles, an assessment of the quality of each study using standardized tools, and an overall assessment of the quality of the evidence. A high-quality systematic review meeting these standards was the basis for my review article on vitamin D.³

A “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

To challenge the findings of the unproven benefits of vitamin D, Dr. Grant cited 4 studies to support the purported benefit of achieving a specific serum 25(OH)D level to prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and COVID-19. After reading these studies, I would not consider any of them a “game changer.”

The first study was restricted to those with prediabetes, had limited follow-up (mean of 2.5 years), and found different results for those with the same 25(OH)D concentrations in the placebo and treatment groups.⁴ The second study was a large, well-conducted clinical trial that found no benefit of vitamin D supplementation in preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease.⁵ While Dr. Grant claims that benefits were found for some subgroups, I could locate only the statistics on cancer incidence in Black participants, and the confidence intervals showed no statistically significant benefit. It is always questionable to look at multiple outcomes in multiple subgroups without a prior hypothesis because of the likely occurrence of chance findings in so many comparisons. The third was a retrospective observational study with all the potential biases and challenges to validity that such studies present.⁶ A single study, especially 1 with observational methods, almost never conclusively settles a point.

The role of vitamin D in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 is an aspect that was not covered in the systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The study on this issuecited by Dr. Grant was a large retrospective observational study that found an inverse relationship between serum 25(OH)D levels and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates.⁷ This is 1 observational study with interesting results. However, I believe the conclusion of the National Institutes of Health is currently still the correct one: “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”⁸

With time and further research, Dr. Grant may eventually prove to be correct on specific points. However, when challenging a high-quality systematic review, one must assess the quality of the studies used while also placing them in context of the totality of the literature.

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA
Phoenix, AZ

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. The National Academy Press, 2011.

2. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. The National Academy Press, 2011.

3. Kahwati LC, LeBlanc E, Weber RP, et al. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults; updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325:1443-1463. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26498

4. Dawson-Hughes B, Staten MA, Knowler WC, et al. Intratrial exposure to vitamin D and new-onset diabetes among adults with prediabetes: a secondary analysis from the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:2916-2922. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1765

5. Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee I-M, et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:33-44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809944

6. Acharya P, Dalia T, Ranka S, et al. The effects of vitamin D supplementation and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels on the risk of myocardial infarction and mortality. J Endocr Soc. 2021;5:bvab124. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvab124

7. Kaufman HW, Niles JK, Kroll MH, et al. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates associated with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0239252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239252

8. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin D. COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Updated April 21, 2021. Accessed November 18, 2021. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/

The recent Practice Alert by Dr. Campos-Outcalt, “How to proceed when it comes to vitamin D” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:289-292) claimed that the value of vitamin D supplements for prevention is nil or still unknown.¹ Most of the references cited in support of this statement were centered on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on vitamin D dose rather than achieved 25-­hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration. Since the health effects of vitamin D supplementation are correlated with 25(OH)D concentration, the latter should be used to evaluate the results of vitamin D RCTs—a point I made in my 2018 article on the topic.²

For example, in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study, in which participants in the treatment arm received 4000 IU/d vitamin D₃, there was no reduced rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes. However, when 25(OH)D concentrations were analyzed for those in the vitamin D arm during the trial, the risk was found to be reduced by 25% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82) per 10 ng/mL increase in 25(OH)D.³

There are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Another trial, the Harvard-led VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL), enrolled more than 25,000 participants, with the treatment arm receiving 2000 IU/d vitamin D₃.⁴ There were no significant reductions in incidence of either cancer or cardiovascular disease for the entire group. The mean baseline 25(OH)D concentration for those for whom values were provided was 31 ng/mL (32.2 ng/mL for White participants, 24.9 ng/mL for Black participants). However, there were ~25% reductions in cancer risk among Black participants (who had lower 25(OH)D concentrations than White participants) and those with a body mass index < 25. A posthoc analysis suggested a possible benefit related to the rate of total cancer deaths.

A recent article reported the results of long-term vitamin D supplementation among Veterans Health Administration patients who had an initial 25(OH)D concentration of < 20 ng/mL.⁵ For those who were treated with vitamin D and achieved a 25(OH)D concentration of > 30 ng/mL (compared to those who were untreated and had an average concentration of < 20 ng/mL), the risk of myocardial infarction was 27% lower (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96) and the risk of all-cause mortality was reduced by 39% (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67).

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positivity examined data for more than 190,000 patients in the United States who had serum 25(OH)D concentration measurements taken up to 1 year prior to their SARS-CoV-2 test. Positivity rates were 12.5% (95% CI, 12.2%-12.8%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration < 20 ng/mL vs 5.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-6.4%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration ≥55 ng/mL.⁶

Thus, there are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Continue to: Author's Response

Author's response

I appreciate the letter from Dr. Grant in response to my previous Practice Alert, as it provides an opportunity to make some important points about assessment of scientific evidence and drawing conclusions based on sound methodology. There is an overabundance of scientific literature published, much of which is of questionable quality, meaning a “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) published a series of recommendations on how trustworthy recommendations and guidelines should be produced.^1,2 Key among the steps recommended is a full assessment of the totality of the literature on the subject by an independent, nonconflicted panel. This should be based on a systematic review that includes standard search methods to find all pertinent articles, an assessment of the quality of each study using standardized tools, and an overall assessment of the quality of the evidence. A high-quality systematic review meeting these standards was the basis for my review article on vitamin D.³

A “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

To challenge the findings of the unproven benefits of vitamin D, Dr. Grant cited 4 studies to support the purported benefit of achieving a specific serum 25(OH)D level to prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and COVID-19. After reading these studies, I would not consider any of them a “game changer.”

The first study was restricted to those with prediabetes, had limited follow-up (mean of 2.5 years), and found different results for those with the same 25(OH)D concentrations in the placebo and treatment groups.⁴ The second study was a large, well-conducted clinical trial that found no benefit of vitamin D supplementation in preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease.⁵ While Dr. Grant claims that benefits were found for some subgroups, I could locate only the statistics on cancer incidence in Black participants, and the confidence intervals showed no statistically significant benefit. It is always questionable to look at multiple outcomes in multiple subgroups without a prior hypothesis because of the likely occurrence of chance findings in so many comparisons. The third was a retrospective observational study with all the potential biases and challenges to validity that such studies present.⁶ A single study, especially 1 with observational methods, almost never conclusively settles a point.

The role of vitamin D in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 is an aspect that was not covered in the systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The study on this issuecited by Dr. Grant was a large retrospective observational study that found an inverse relationship between serum 25(OH)D levels and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates.⁷ This is 1 observational study with interesting results. However, I believe the conclusion of the National Institutes of Health is currently still the correct one: “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”⁸

With time and further research, Dr. Grant may eventually prove to be correct on specific points. However, when challenging a high-quality systematic review, one must assess the quality of the studies used while also placing them in context of the totality of the literature.

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA
Phoenix, AZ

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. The National Academy Press, 2011.

2. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. The National Academy Press, 2011.

3. Kahwati LC, LeBlanc E, Weber RP, et al. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults; updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325:1443-1463. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26498

4. Dawson-Hughes B, Staten MA, Knowler WC, et al. Intratrial exposure to vitamin D and new-onset diabetes among adults with prediabetes: a secondary analysis from the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:2916-2922. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1765

5. Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee I-M, et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:33-44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809944

6. Acharya P, Dalia T, Ranka S, et al. The effects of vitamin D supplementation and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels on the risk of myocardial infarction and mortality. J Endocr Soc. 2021;5:bvab124. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvab124

7. Kaufman HW, Niles JK, Kroll MH, et al. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates associated with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0239252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239252

8. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin D. COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Updated April 21, 2021. Accessed November 18, 2021. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/

The recent Practice Alert by Dr. Campos-Outcalt, “How to proceed when it comes to vitamin D” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:289-292) claimed that the value of vitamin D supplements for prevention is nil or still unknown.¹ Most of the references cited in support of this statement were centered on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on vitamin D dose rather than achieved 25-­hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration. Since the health effects of vitamin D supplementation are correlated with 25(OH)D concentration, the latter should be used to evaluate the results of vitamin D RCTs—a point I made in my 2018 article on the topic.²

For example, in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study, in which participants in the treatment arm received 4000 IU/d vitamin D₃, there was no reduced rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes. However, when 25(OH)D concentrations were analyzed for those in the vitamin D arm during the trial, the risk was found to be reduced by 25% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82) per 10 ng/mL increase in 25(OH)D.³

There are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Another trial, the Harvard-led VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL), enrolled more than 25,000 participants, with the treatment arm receiving 2000 IU/d vitamin D₃.⁴ There were no significant reductions in incidence of either cancer or cardiovascular disease for the entire group. The mean baseline 25(OH)D concentration for those for whom values were provided was 31 ng/mL (32.2 ng/mL for White participants, 24.9 ng/mL for Black participants). However, there were ~25% reductions in cancer risk among Black participants (who had lower 25(OH)D concentrations than White participants) and those with a body mass index < 25. A posthoc analysis suggested a possible benefit related to the rate of total cancer deaths.

A recent article reported the results of long-term vitamin D supplementation among Veterans Health Administration patients who had an initial 25(OH)D concentration of < 20 ng/mL.⁵ For those who were treated with vitamin D and achieved a 25(OH)D concentration of > 30 ng/mL (compared to those who were untreated and had an average concentration of < 20 ng/mL), the risk of myocardial infarction was 27% lower (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96) and the risk of all-cause mortality was reduced by 39% (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67).

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positivity examined data for more than 190,000 patients in the United States who had serum 25(OH)D concentration measurements taken up to 1 year prior to their SARS-CoV-2 test. Positivity rates were 12.5% (95% CI, 12.2%-12.8%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration < 20 ng/mL vs 5.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-6.4%) for those with a 25(OH)D concentration ≥55 ng/mL.⁶

Thus, there are significant benefits of vitamin D supplementation to achieve a 25(OH)D concentration of 30 to 60 ng/mL for important health outcomes.

Continue to: Author's Response

Author's response

I appreciate the letter from Dr. Grant in response to my previous Practice Alert, as it provides an opportunity to make some important points about assessment of scientific evidence and drawing conclusions based on sound methodology. There is an overabundance of scientific literature published, much of which is of questionable quality, meaning a “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) published a series of recommendations on how trustworthy recommendations and guidelines should be produced.^1,2 Key among the steps recommended is a full assessment of the totality of the literature on the subject by an independent, nonconflicted panel. This should be based on a systematic review that includes standard search methods to find all pertinent articles, an assessment of the quality of each study using standardized tools, and an overall assessment of the quality of the evidence. A high-quality systematic review meeting these standards was the basis for my review article on vitamin D.³

A “study” or 2 can be found to support any preconceived point of view.

To challenge the findings of the unproven benefits of vitamin D, Dr. Grant cited 4 studies to support the purported benefit of achieving a specific serum 25(OH)D level to prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and COVID-19. After reading these studies, I would not consider any of them a “game changer.”

The first study was restricted to those with prediabetes, had limited follow-up (mean of 2.5 years), and found different results for those with the same 25(OH)D concentrations in the placebo and treatment groups.⁴ The second study was a large, well-conducted clinical trial that found no benefit of vitamin D supplementation in preventing cancer and cardiovascular disease.⁵ While Dr. Grant claims that benefits were found for some subgroups, I could locate only the statistics on cancer incidence in Black participants, and the confidence intervals showed no statistically significant benefit. It is always questionable to look at multiple outcomes in multiple subgroups without a prior hypothesis because of the likely occurrence of chance findings in so many comparisons. The third was a retrospective observational study with all the potential biases and challenges to validity that such studies present.⁶ A single study, especially 1 with observational methods, almost never conclusively settles a point.

The role of vitamin D in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 is an aspect that was not covered in the systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The study on this issuecited by Dr. Grant was a large retrospective observational study that found an inverse relationship between serum 25(OH)D levels and SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates.⁷ This is 1 observational study with interesting results. However, I believe the conclusion of the National Institutes of Health is currently still the correct one: “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.”⁸

With time and further research, Dr. Grant may eventually prove to be correct on specific points. However, when challenging a high-quality systematic review, one must assess the quality of the studies used while also placing them in context of the totality of the literature.

Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD, MPA
Phoenix, AZ

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care. The National Academy Press, 2011.

2. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. The National Academy Press, 2011.

3. Kahwati LC, LeBlanc E, Weber RP, et al. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults; updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325:1443-1463. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26498

4. Dawson-Hughes B, Staten MA, Knowler WC, et al. Intratrial exposure to vitamin D and new-onset diabetes among adults with prediabetes: a secondary analysis from the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) Study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43:2916-2922. doi: 10.2337/dc20-1765

5. Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee I-M, et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:33-44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1809944

6. Acharya P, Dalia T, Ranka S, et al. The effects of vitamin D supplementation and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels on the risk of myocardial infarction and mortality. J Endocr Soc. 2021;5:bvab124. doi: 10.1210/jendso/bvab124

7. Kaufman HW, Niles JK, Kroll MH, et al. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates associated with circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0239252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239252

8. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin D. COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Updated April 21, 2021. Accessed November 18, 2021. www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/supplements/vitamin-d/

It is well-known that per capita health care spending in the United States is more than twice the average in other developed countries¹; nevertheless, the overall health care ranking of the US is near the bottom compared to other countries in this group.² Much of the reason for this poor relative showing lies in the fact that the US has employed a somewhat traditional fee-for-service health care model that does not incentivize efforts to promote health and wellness or prevent chronic disease. The paradigm of promoting physical activity for its disease-preventing and treatment benefits has not been well-integrated in the US health care system.

In this article, we endeavor to provide better understanding of the barriers that keep family physicians from routinely promoting physical activity in clinical practice; define tools and resources that can be used in the clinical setting to promote physical activity; and delineate areas for future work.

Glaring hole in US physical activity education

Many primary care physicians feel underprepared to prescribe or motivate patients to exercise. The reason for that lack of preparedness likely relates to a medical education system that does not spend time preparing physicians to perform this critical task. A study showed that, on average, medical schools require only 8 hours of physical activity education in their curriculum during the 4 years of schooling.³ Likewise, the average primary care residency program offers only 3 hours of didactic training on physical activity, nutrition, and obesity.⁴ The problem extends to sports medicine fellowship training, in which a 2019 survey showed that 63% of fellows were never taught how to write an exercise prescription in their training program.⁵

Medical professionals must be educated on the social determinants of health, including conditions in which people live, work, and play, which can contribute to health inequities.

Without education on physical activity, medical students, residents, and fellows are woefully underprepared to realize the therapeutic value of physical activity in patient care, comprehend current physical activity guidelines, appropriately motivate patients to engage in exercise, and competently discuss exercise prescriptions in different disease states. Throughout their training, it is imperative for medical professionals to be educated on the social determinants of health, which include the conditions in which people live, work, and play. These environmental variables can contribute to health inequities that create additional barriers to improvement in physical fitness.⁶

National guidelines on physical activity

The 2018 National Physical Activity Guidelines detail recommendations for children, adolescents, adults, and special populations.⁷ The guidelines define physical activity as bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that result in energy expenditure above resting baseline levels, and includes all types, intensities, and domains of activity. Exercise is a subset of physical activity characterized as planned, structured, repetitive, and designed to improve or maintain physical fitness, physical performance, or health.

Highlights from the 2018 guidelines include⁷:

• Preschool-aged children (3 to 5 years of age) should be physically active throughout the day, with as much as 3 hours per day of physical activity of all intensities—light, moderate, and vigorous.
• Older children and adolescents (6 to 17 years) should accumulate 60 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, including aerobic, muscle-strengthening, and bone-strengthening activities.
• Adults of all ages should achieve approximately 150 to 300 minutes of moderate or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous physical activity (or an equivalent combination) per week, along with at least 2 days per week of ­muscle-strengthening activities. Other types of physical activity include flexibility, balance, bone-strengthening, and mind–body exercises.

3-step framework for enhancing physical activity counseling

Merely knowing that physical activity is healthy is not enough, during a patient encounter, to increase the level of physical activity. Therefore, it is imperative to learn and adopt a framework that has proved to yield successful outcomes. The Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) framework, which has predominantly been used to change patient behavior related to alcohol and substance use, is now being utilized by some providers to promote physical activity.⁸ We apply the SBIRT approach in this article, although research is lacking on its clinical utility and outcome measures.

Continue to: SBIRT

 

 

SBIRT: Screening

An office visit provides an opportunity to understand a patient’s level of physical activity. Often, understanding a patient’s baseline level of activity is only asked during a thorough social history, which might not be performed during patient encounters. As physical activity is the primary determinant of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), some health care systems have begun delineating physical activity levels as a vital sign to ensure that the assessment of physical activity is a standard part of every clinical encounter. At a minimum, this serves as a prompt and provides an opportunity to start a conversation around improving physical activity levels when guidelines are not being met.

The exercise vital sign. Assessment and documentation of physical activity in the electronic health record are not yet standardized; however, Kaiser Permanente health plans have implemented the exercise vital sign, or EVS, in its HealthConnect (Epic Systems) electronic health record. The EVS incorporates information about a patient’s:

• days per week of moderate-to-­strenuous exercise (eg, a brisk walk)
• minutes per day, on average, of exercise at this level.

The physical activity vital sign. Intermountain Healthcare implemented the physical activity vital sign, or PAVS, in its iCentra (Cerner Corp.) electronic health record. The 3-question PAVS assessment asks:

• On average, how many days of the week do you perform physical activity or exercise?
• On average, how many total minutes of physical activity or exercise do you perform on those days?
• How would you describe the intensity of your physical activity or exercise: Light (ie, a casual walk)? Moderate (a brisk walk)? Or vigorous (jogging)?

PAVS includes a fourth data point: The physician–user documents whether the patient was counseled to start, increase, maintain, or modify physical activity or exercise.

EVS and the PAVS have demonstrated validity.^9-11

Continue to: Cardiorespiratory fitness as a vital sign

Cardiorespiratory fitness as a vital sign. In 2016, the American Heart Association (AHA) asserted the importance of assessing CRF as a clinical vital sign.¹² CRF is commonly expressed as maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂max = O₂ mL/kg/min) and measured through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), considered the gold standard by combining conventional graded exercise testing with ventilatory expired gas analysis. CPET is more objective and precise than equations estimating CRF that are derived from peak work rate. AHA recommended that efforts to improve CRF should become standard in clinical encounters, explaining that even a small increase in CRF (eg, 1 or 2 metabolic equivalents^a [METs]) is associated with a considerably (10% to 30%) lower rate of adverse cardiovascular events.¹²

The SBIRT framework, predominantly used to change patient behavior related to alcohol and substance use, is now being utilized by some clinicians to promote physical activity

De Souza de Silva and colleagues revealed an association between each 1-MET increase in CRF and per-person annual health care cost savings (adjusted for age and presence of cardiovascular disease) of $3272 (normal-weight patients), $4252 (overweight), and $6103 (obese).¹³ In its 2016 scientific statement on CRF as a vital sign, AHA listed several methods of estimating CRF and concluded that, although CPET involves a higher level of training, proficiency, equipment, and, therefore, cost, the independent and additive information obtained justifies its use in many patients.¹²

CASE 

Mary Q, 68 years of age, presents for an annual well-woman examination. Body mass index is 32; resting heart rate (HR), 73 bpm; and blood pressure, 126/74 mm Hg. She reports being inactive, except for light walking every day with her dog around the neighborhood, which takes them approximately 15 minutes. She denies any history or signs and symptoms of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease.

You consider 3 questions before taking next steps regarding increasing Ms. Q’s activity level:

• What is her PAVS?
• Does she need medical clearance before starting an exercise program?
• What would an evidence-based cardiovascular exercise prescription for Ms. Q look like?

SBIRT: Brief intervention

When a patient does not meet the recommended level of physical activity, you have an opportunity to deliver a brief intervention. To do this effectively, you must have adequate understanding of the patient’s receptivity for change. The transtheoretical, or Stages of Change, model proposes that a person typically goes through 5 stages of growth—­pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance—in the process of lifestyle modification. This model highlights the different approaches to exercise adoption and maintenance that need to be taken, based on a given patient’s stage at the moment.

Continue to: Using this framework...

Using this framework, you can help patients realize intrinsic motivation that can facilitate progression through each stage, utilizing techniques such as motivational interviewing—so-called change talk—to increase self-efficacy.¹⁴TABLE 1¹⁵ provides examples of motivational interviewing techniques that can be used during a patient encounter to improve health behaviors, such as physical activity.

Writing the exercise prescription

A patient who wants to increase their level of physical activity should be offered a formal exercise prescription, which has been shown to increase the level of physical activity, particularly in older patients. In fact, a study conducted in Spain in the practices of family physicians found that older patients who received a physical activity prescription increased their activity by 131 minutes per week; and compared to control patients, they doubled the minutes per week devoted to moderate or vigorous physical activity.¹⁶

FITT-VP. The basics of a cardiovascular exercise prescription can be found in the FITT-VP (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type, Volume, and [monitoring of] Progression) framework (TABLE 2^17-19). For most patients, this model includes 3 to 5 days per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity for 30 to 60 minutes per session. For patients with established chronic disease, physical activity provides health benefits but might require modification. Disease-specific patient handouts for exercise can be downloaded, at no cost, through the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) “Exercise Is Medicine” program, which can be found at: www.exerciseismedicine.org/support_page.php/rx-for-health-series.

Determining intensity level. Although CPET is the gold standard for determining a patient’s target intensity level, such a test might be impracticable for a given patient. Surrogate markers of target intensity level can be obtained by measuring maximum HR (HRmax), using a well-known equation²⁰:

HRmax = 220 – age

which is then multiplied by intensity range:

• light: 30%-39%
• moderate: 40%-59%
• vigorous: 60%-89%

or, more preferably, by calculating the HR training zone while accounting for HR at rest (HRrest). This is accomplished by calculating the HR reserve (HRR) (ie, HRR = HRmax – HRrest) and then calculating the target heart rate (THR)²¹:

THR = [HRR × %intensity] + HRrest

Continue to: The THR calculation...

The THR calculation is performed twice, once with a lower %intensity and again with a higher %intensity to develop a training zone based on HRR.

The HRR equation is more accurate than calculating HRmax from 220 – age, because HRR accounts for resting HR, which is often lower in people who are better conditioned.

Another method of calculating intensity for patients who are beginning a physical activity program is the rating of perceived exertion (RPE), which is graded on a scale of 6 to 20: Moderate exercise correlates with an RPE of 12 to 13 (“somewhat hard”); vigorous exercise correlates with an RPE of 14 to 16 (“hard”). By adding a zero to the rating on the RPE scale, the corresponding HR in a healthy adult can be estimated when they are performing an activity at that perceived intensity.²² Moderate exercise therefore correlates with a HR of 120 and 130 bpm.

The so-called talk test can also guide exercise intensity: Light-intensity activity correlates with an ability to sing; moderate-intensity physical activity likely allows the patient to still hold a conversation; and vigorous-intensity activity correlates with an inability to carry on a conversation while exercising.

An exercise prescription should be accompanied by a patient-derived goal, which can be reassessed during a follow-up visit. So-called SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) are tools to help patients set personalized and realistic expectations for physical activity. Meeting the goal of approximately 150 to 300 minutes of moderate or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous physical activity (or an equivalent combination) per week is ideal, but a patient needs to start where they are, at the moment, and gradually increase activity by setting what for them are realistic and sustainable goals.

Continue to: CASE

CASE

With a PAVS of 105 minutes (ie, 15 minutes per day × 7 days) of weekly light-to-moderate exercise walking her dog, Ms. Q does not satisfy current physical activity guidelines. She needs an exercise prescription to incorporate into her lifestyle (see “Cardiovascular exercise prescription,” at left).

First, based on ACSM pre-participation guidelines, Ms. Q does not need medical clearance before initiating light-to-moderate exercise and gradually progressing to ­vigorous-intensity exercise.

Second, in addition to walking the dog for 105 minutes a week, you:

• advise her to start walking for 10 minutes, 3 times per week, at a pace that keeps her HR at 97-104 bpm.
• encourage her to gradually increase the frequency or duration of her walks by no more than 10% per week.

SBIRT: Referral for treatment

When referring a patient to a fitness program or professional, it is essential to consider their preferences, resources, and environment.²³ Community fitness partners are often an excellent referral option for a patient seeking guidance or structure for their exercise program. Using the ACSM ProFinder service, (www.acsm.org/get-stay-certified/find-a-pro) you can search for exercise professionals who have achieved the College’s Gold Standard credential.

Gym memberships or fitness programs might be part of the extra coverage offered by Medicare Advantage Plans, other Medicare health plans, or Medicare Supplement Insurance (Medigap) plans.²⁴

Continue to: CASE

CASE

After providing Ms. Q with her exercise prescription, you refer her to a local gym that participates in the Silver Sneakers fitness and wellness program (for adults ≥ 65 years of age in eligible Medicare plans) to determine whether she qualifies to begin resistance and flexibility training, for which you will write a second exercise prescription (TABLE 3^17-19).

Pre-participation screening

Updated 2015 ACSM exercise pre-participation health screening recommendations attempt to decrease possible barriers to people who are becoming more physically active, by minimizing unnecessary referral to health care providers before they change their level of physical activity. ACSM recommendations on exercise clearance include this guidance²⁵:

• For a patient who is asymptomatic and already physically active—regardless of whether they have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease—medical clearance is unnecessary for moderate-intensity exercise.
• Any patient who has been physically active and asymptomatic but who becomes symptomatic during exercise should immediately discontinue such activity and undergo medical evaluation.
• For a patient who is inactive, ­asymptomatic, and who does not have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, medical clearance for light- or moderate-intensity exercise is unnecessary.
• For inactive, asymptomatic patients who have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, medical clearance is recommended.

Digital health

Smartwatches and health apps (eg, CardioCoach, Fitbit, Garmin Connect, Nike Training Club, Strava, and Training Peaks) can provide workouts and offer patients the ability to collect information and even connect with other users through social media platforms. This information can be synced to Apple Health platforms for iPhones (www.apple.com/ios/health/) or through Google Fit (www.google.com/fit/) on Android devices. Primary care physicians who become familiar with health apps might find them useful for select patients who want to use technology to improve their physical activity level.

However, data on the value of using digital apps for increasing physical activity, in relation to their cost, are limited. Additional research is needed to assess their validity.

Billing and coding

For most patients, the physical activity assessment, prescription, and referral are performed in the context of treating another condition (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, obesity, depression) or during a preventive health examination, and are typically covered without additional charge to the patient. An evaluation and management visit for an established patient could be used to bill if > 50% of the office visit was spent face-to-face with a physician, with patient counseling and coordination of care.

Continue to: Physicians and physical therapists...

Physicians and physical therapists can use the therapeutic exercise code (Current Procedural Terminology code 97110) when teaching patients exercises to develop muscle strength and endurance, joint range of motion, and flexibility²⁶ (TABLE 4²⁶).

Conclusion

Physical activity and CRF are strong predictors of premature mortality, even compared to other risk factors, such as cigarette smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and type 2 diabetes.²⁷ Brief physical activity assessment and counseling is an efficient, effective, and cost-effective means to increase physical activity, and presents a unique opportunity for you to encourage lifestyle-based strategies for reducing cardiovascular risk.²⁸

The AHA has asserted the importance of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness as a “vital sign.”

However, it is essential to meet patients where they are before trying to have them progress; it is therefore imperative to assess the individual patient’s level of activity using PAVS. With that information in hand, you can personalize physical activity advice; determine readiness for change and potential barriers for change; assist the patient in setting SMART goals; and arrange follow-up to assess adherence to the exercise prescription. Encourage the patient to call their health insurance plan to determine whether a gym membership or fitness program is covered.

Research is needed to evaluate the value of using digital apps, in light of their cost, to increase physical activity and improve CRF in a clinical setting. Prospective trials should be initiated to determine how routine implementation of CRF assessment in primary care alters the trajectory of clinical care. It is hoped that future research will answer the question: Would such an approach improve clinical outcomes and reduce health care expenditures?¹²

a Defined as O2 consumed while sitting at rest; equivalent to 3.5 mL of O₂ × kg of body weight × min.

CORRESPONDENCE
Matthew Kampert, DO, MS, Sports Medicine, 5555 Transportation Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44125; kamperm@ccf.org

It is well-known that per capita health care spending in the United States is more than twice the average in other developed countries¹; nevertheless, the overall health care ranking of the US is near the bottom compared to other countries in this group.² Much of the reason for this poor relative showing lies in the fact that the US has employed a somewhat traditional fee-for-service health care model that does not incentivize efforts to promote health and wellness or prevent chronic disease. The paradigm of promoting physical activity for its disease-preventing and treatment benefits has not been well-integrated in the US health care system.

In this article, we endeavor to provide better understanding of the barriers that keep family physicians from routinely promoting physical activity in clinical practice; define tools and resources that can be used in the clinical setting to promote physical activity; and delineate areas for future work.

Glaring hole in US physical activity education

Many primary care physicians feel underprepared to prescribe or motivate patients to exercise. The reason for that lack of preparedness likely relates to a medical education system that does not spend time preparing physicians to perform this critical task. A study showed that, on average, medical schools require only 8 hours of physical activity education in their curriculum during the 4 years of schooling.³ Likewise, the average primary care residency program offers only 3 hours of didactic training on physical activity, nutrition, and obesity.⁴ The problem extends to sports medicine fellowship training, in which a 2019 survey showed that 63% of fellows were never taught how to write an exercise prescription in their training program.⁵

Medical professionals must be educated on the social determinants of health, including conditions in which people live, work, and play, which can contribute to health inequities.

Without education on physical activity, medical students, residents, and fellows are woefully underprepared to realize the therapeutic value of physical activity in patient care, comprehend current physical activity guidelines, appropriately motivate patients to engage in exercise, and competently discuss exercise prescriptions in different disease states. Throughout their training, it is imperative for medical professionals to be educated on the social determinants of health, which include the conditions in which people live, work, and play. These environmental variables can contribute to health inequities that create additional barriers to improvement in physical fitness.⁶

National guidelines on physical activity

The 2018 National Physical Activity Guidelines detail recommendations for children, adolescents, adults, and special populations.⁷ The guidelines define physical activity as bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that result in energy expenditure above resting baseline levels, and includes all types, intensities, and domains of activity. Exercise is a subset of physical activity characterized as planned, structured, repetitive, and designed to improve or maintain physical fitness, physical performance, or health.

Highlights from the 2018 guidelines include⁷:

• Preschool-aged children (3 to 5 years of age) should be physically active throughout the day, with as much as 3 hours per day of physical activity of all intensities—light, moderate, and vigorous.
• Older children and adolescents (6 to 17 years) should accumulate 60 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, including aerobic, muscle-strengthening, and bone-strengthening activities.
• Adults of all ages should achieve approximately 150 to 300 minutes of moderate or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous physical activity (or an equivalent combination) per week, along with at least 2 days per week of ­muscle-strengthening activities. Other types of physical activity include flexibility, balance, bone-strengthening, and mind–body exercises.

3-step framework for enhancing physical activity counseling

Merely knowing that physical activity is healthy is not enough, during a patient encounter, to increase the level of physical activity. Therefore, it is imperative to learn and adopt a framework that has proved to yield successful outcomes. The Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) framework, which has predominantly been used to change patient behavior related to alcohol and substance use, is now being utilized by some providers to promote physical activity.⁸ We apply the SBIRT approach in this article, although research is lacking on its clinical utility and outcome measures.

Continue to: SBIRT

 

 

SBIRT: Screening

An office visit provides an opportunity to understand a patient’s level of physical activity. Often, understanding a patient’s baseline level of activity is only asked during a thorough social history, which might not be performed during patient encounters. As physical activity is the primary determinant of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), some health care systems have begun delineating physical activity levels as a vital sign to ensure that the assessment of physical activity is a standard part of every clinical encounter. At a minimum, this serves as a prompt and provides an opportunity to start a conversation around improving physical activity levels when guidelines are not being met.

The exercise vital sign. Assessment and documentation of physical activity in the electronic health record are not yet standardized; however, Kaiser Permanente health plans have implemented the exercise vital sign, or EVS, in its HealthConnect (Epic Systems) electronic health record. The EVS incorporates information about a patient’s:

• days per week of moderate-to-­strenuous exercise (eg, a brisk walk)
• minutes per day, on average, of exercise at this level.

The physical activity vital sign. Intermountain Healthcare implemented the physical activity vital sign, or PAVS, in its iCentra (Cerner Corp.) electronic health record. The 3-question PAVS assessment asks:

• On average, how many days of the week do you perform physical activity or exercise?
• On average, how many total minutes of physical activity or exercise do you perform on those days?
• How would you describe the intensity of your physical activity or exercise: Light (ie, a casual walk)? Moderate (a brisk walk)? Or vigorous (jogging)?

PAVS includes a fourth data point: The physician–user documents whether the patient was counseled to start, increase, maintain, or modify physical activity or exercise.

EVS and the PAVS have demonstrated validity.^9-11

Continue to: Cardiorespiratory fitness as a vital sign

Cardiorespiratory fitness as a vital sign. In 2016, the American Heart Association (AHA) asserted the importance of assessing CRF as a clinical vital sign.¹² CRF is commonly expressed as maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂max = O₂ mL/kg/min) and measured through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), considered the gold standard by combining conventional graded exercise testing with ventilatory expired gas analysis. CPET is more objective and precise than equations estimating CRF that are derived from peak work rate. AHA recommended that efforts to improve CRF should become standard in clinical encounters, explaining that even a small increase in CRF (eg, 1 or 2 metabolic equivalents^a [METs]) is associated with a considerably (10% to 30%) lower rate of adverse cardiovascular events.¹²

The SBIRT framework, predominantly used to change patient behavior related to alcohol and substance use, is now being utilized by some clinicians to promote physical activity

De Souza de Silva and colleagues revealed an association between each 1-MET increase in CRF and per-person annual health care cost savings (adjusted for age and presence of cardiovascular disease) of $3272 (normal-weight patients), $4252 (overweight), and $6103 (obese).¹³ In its 2016 scientific statement on CRF as a vital sign, AHA listed several methods of estimating CRF and concluded that, although CPET involves a higher level of training, proficiency, equipment, and, therefore, cost, the independent and additive information obtained justifies its use in many patients.¹²

CASE 

Mary Q, 68 years of age, presents for an annual well-woman examination. Body mass index is 32; resting heart rate (HR), 73 bpm; and blood pressure, 126/74 mm Hg. She reports being inactive, except for light walking every day with her dog around the neighborhood, which takes them approximately 15 minutes. She denies any history or signs and symptoms of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease.

You consider 3 questions before taking next steps regarding increasing Ms. Q’s activity level:

• What is her PAVS?
• Does she need medical clearance before starting an exercise program?
• What would an evidence-based cardiovascular exercise prescription for Ms. Q look like?

SBIRT: Brief intervention

When a patient does not meet the recommended level of physical activity, you have an opportunity to deliver a brief intervention. To do this effectively, you must have adequate understanding of the patient’s receptivity for change. The transtheoretical, or Stages of Change, model proposes that a person typically goes through 5 stages of growth—­pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance—in the process of lifestyle modification. This model highlights the different approaches to exercise adoption and maintenance that need to be taken, based on a given patient’s stage at the moment.

Continue to: Using this framework...

Using this framework, you can help patients realize intrinsic motivation that can facilitate progression through each stage, utilizing techniques such as motivational interviewing—so-called change talk—to increase self-efficacy.¹⁴TABLE 1¹⁵ provides examples of motivational interviewing techniques that can be used during a patient encounter to improve health behaviors, such as physical activity.

Writing the exercise prescription

A patient who wants to increase their level of physical activity should be offered a formal exercise prescription, which has been shown to increase the level of physical activity, particularly in older patients. In fact, a study conducted in Spain in the practices of family physicians found that older patients who received a physical activity prescription increased their activity by 131 minutes per week; and compared to control patients, they doubled the minutes per week devoted to moderate or vigorous physical activity.¹⁶

FITT-VP. The basics of a cardiovascular exercise prescription can be found in the FITT-VP (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type, Volume, and [monitoring of] Progression) framework (TABLE 2^17-19). For most patients, this model includes 3 to 5 days per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity for 30 to 60 minutes per session. For patients with established chronic disease, physical activity provides health benefits but might require modification. Disease-specific patient handouts for exercise can be downloaded, at no cost, through the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) “Exercise Is Medicine” program, which can be found at: www.exerciseismedicine.org/support_page.php/rx-for-health-series.

Determining intensity level. Although CPET is the gold standard for determining a patient’s target intensity level, such a test might be impracticable for a given patient. Surrogate markers of target intensity level can be obtained by measuring maximum HR (HRmax), using a well-known equation²⁰:

HRmax = 220 – age

which is then multiplied by intensity range:

• light: 30%-39%
• moderate: 40%-59%
• vigorous: 60%-89%

or, more preferably, by calculating the HR training zone while accounting for HR at rest (HRrest). This is accomplished by calculating the HR reserve (HRR) (ie, HRR = HRmax – HRrest) and then calculating the target heart rate (THR)²¹:

THR = [HRR × %intensity] + HRrest

Continue to: The THR calculation...

The THR calculation is performed twice, once with a lower %intensity and again with a higher %intensity to develop a training zone based on HRR.

The HRR equation is more accurate than calculating HRmax from 220 – age, because HRR accounts for resting HR, which is often lower in people who are better conditioned.

Another method of calculating intensity for patients who are beginning a physical activity program is the rating of perceived exertion (RPE), which is graded on a scale of 6 to 20: Moderate exercise correlates with an RPE of 12 to 13 (“somewhat hard”); vigorous exercise correlates with an RPE of 14 to 16 (“hard”). By adding a zero to the rating on the RPE scale, the corresponding HR in a healthy adult can be estimated when they are performing an activity at that perceived intensity.²² Moderate exercise therefore correlates with a HR of 120 and 130 bpm.

The so-called talk test can also guide exercise intensity: Light-intensity activity correlates with an ability to sing; moderate-intensity physical activity likely allows the patient to still hold a conversation; and vigorous-intensity activity correlates with an inability to carry on a conversation while exercising.

An exercise prescription should be accompanied by a patient-derived goal, which can be reassessed during a follow-up visit. So-called SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) are tools to help patients set personalized and realistic expectations for physical activity. Meeting the goal of approximately 150 to 300 minutes of moderate or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous physical activity (or an equivalent combination) per week is ideal, but a patient needs to start where they are, at the moment, and gradually increase activity by setting what for them are realistic and sustainable goals.

Continue to: CASE

CASE

With a PAVS of 105 minutes (ie, 15 minutes per day × 7 days) of weekly light-to-moderate exercise walking her dog, Ms. Q does not satisfy current physical activity guidelines. She needs an exercise prescription to incorporate into her lifestyle (see “Cardiovascular exercise prescription,” at left).

First, based on ACSM pre-participation guidelines, Ms. Q does not need medical clearance before initiating light-to-moderate exercise and gradually progressing to ­vigorous-intensity exercise.

Second, in addition to walking the dog for 105 minutes a week, you:

• advise her to start walking for 10 minutes, 3 times per week, at a pace that keeps her HR at 97-104 bpm.
• encourage her to gradually increase the frequency or duration of her walks by no more than 10% per week.

SBIRT: Referral for treatment

When referring a patient to a fitness program or professional, it is essential to consider their preferences, resources, and environment.²³ Community fitness partners are often an excellent referral option for a patient seeking guidance or structure for their exercise program. Using the ACSM ProFinder service, (www.acsm.org/get-stay-certified/find-a-pro) you can search for exercise professionals who have achieved the College’s Gold Standard credential.

Gym memberships or fitness programs might be part of the extra coverage offered by Medicare Advantage Plans, other Medicare health plans, or Medicare Supplement Insurance (Medigap) plans.²⁴

Continue to: CASE

CASE

After providing Ms. Q with her exercise prescription, you refer her to a local gym that participates in the Silver Sneakers fitness and wellness program (for adults ≥ 65 years of age in eligible Medicare plans) to determine whether she qualifies to begin resistance and flexibility training, for which you will write a second exercise prescription (TABLE 3^17-19).

Pre-participation screening

Updated 2015 ACSM exercise pre-participation health screening recommendations attempt to decrease possible barriers to people who are becoming more physically active, by minimizing unnecessary referral to health care providers before they change their level of physical activity. ACSM recommendations on exercise clearance include this guidance²⁵:

• For a patient who is asymptomatic and already physically active—regardless of whether they have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease—medical clearance is unnecessary for moderate-intensity exercise.
• Any patient who has been physically active and asymptomatic but who becomes symptomatic during exercise should immediately discontinue such activity and undergo medical evaluation.
• For a patient who is inactive, ­asymptomatic, and who does not have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, medical clearance for light- or moderate-intensity exercise is unnecessary.
• For inactive, asymptomatic patients who have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, medical clearance is recommended.

Digital health

Smartwatches and health apps (eg, CardioCoach, Fitbit, Garmin Connect, Nike Training Club, Strava, and Training Peaks) can provide workouts and offer patients the ability to collect information and even connect with other users through social media platforms. This information can be synced to Apple Health platforms for iPhones (www.apple.com/ios/health/) or through Google Fit (www.google.com/fit/) on Android devices. Primary care physicians who become familiar with health apps might find them useful for select patients who want to use technology to improve their physical activity level.

However, data on the value of using digital apps for increasing physical activity, in relation to their cost, are limited. Additional research is needed to assess their validity.

Billing and coding

For most patients, the physical activity assessment, prescription, and referral are performed in the context of treating another condition (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, obesity, depression) or during a preventive health examination, and are typically covered without additional charge to the patient. An evaluation and management visit for an established patient could be used to bill if > 50% of the office visit was spent face-to-face with a physician, with patient counseling and coordination of care.

Continue to: Physicians and physical therapists...

Physicians and physical therapists can use the therapeutic exercise code (Current Procedural Terminology code 97110) when teaching patients exercises to develop muscle strength and endurance, joint range of motion, and flexibility²⁶ (TABLE 4²⁶).

Conclusion

Physical activity and CRF are strong predictors of premature mortality, even compared to other risk factors, such as cigarette smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and type 2 diabetes.²⁷ Brief physical activity assessment and counseling is an efficient, effective, and cost-effective means to increase physical activity, and presents a unique opportunity for you to encourage lifestyle-based strategies for reducing cardiovascular risk.²⁸

The AHA has asserted the importance of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness as a “vital sign.”

However, it is essential to meet patients where they are before trying to have them progress; it is therefore imperative to assess the individual patient’s level of activity using PAVS. With that information in hand, you can personalize physical activity advice; determine readiness for change and potential barriers for change; assist the patient in setting SMART goals; and arrange follow-up to assess adherence to the exercise prescription. Encourage the patient to call their health insurance plan to determine whether a gym membership or fitness program is covered.

Research is needed to evaluate the value of using digital apps, in light of their cost, to increase physical activity and improve CRF in a clinical setting. Prospective trials should be initiated to determine how routine implementation of CRF assessment in primary care alters the trajectory of clinical care. It is hoped that future research will answer the question: Would such an approach improve clinical outcomes and reduce health care expenditures?¹²

a Defined as O2 consumed while sitting at rest; equivalent to 3.5 mL of O₂ × kg of body weight × min.

CORRESPONDENCE
Matthew Kampert, DO, MS, Sports Medicine, 5555 Transportation Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44125; kamperm@ccf.org

It is well-known that per capita health care spending in the United States is more than twice the average in other developed countries¹; nevertheless, the overall health care ranking of the US is near the bottom compared to other countries in this group.² Much of the reason for this poor relative showing lies in the fact that the US has employed a somewhat traditional fee-for-service health care model that does not incentivize efforts to promote health and wellness or prevent chronic disease. The paradigm of promoting physical activity for its disease-preventing and treatment benefits has not been well-integrated in the US health care system.

In this article, we endeavor to provide better understanding of the barriers that keep family physicians from routinely promoting physical activity in clinical practice; define tools and resources that can be used in the clinical setting to promote physical activity; and delineate areas for future work.

Glaring hole in US physical activity education

Many primary care physicians feel underprepared to prescribe or motivate patients to exercise. The reason for that lack of preparedness likely relates to a medical education system that does not spend time preparing physicians to perform this critical task. A study showed that, on average, medical schools require only 8 hours of physical activity education in their curriculum during the 4 years of schooling.³ Likewise, the average primary care residency program offers only 3 hours of didactic training on physical activity, nutrition, and obesity.⁴ The problem extends to sports medicine fellowship training, in which a 2019 survey showed that 63% of fellows were never taught how to write an exercise prescription in their training program.⁵

Medical professionals must be educated on the social determinants of health, including conditions in which people live, work, and play, which can contribute to health inequities.

Without education on physical activity, medical students, residents, and fellows are woefully underprepared to realize the therapeutic value of physical activity in patient care, comprehend current physical activity guidelines, appropriately motivate patients to engage in exercise, and competently discuss exercise prescriptions in different disease states. Throughout their training, it is imperative for medical professionals to be educated on the social determinants of health, which include the conditions in which people live, work, and play. These environmental variables can contribute to health inequities that create additional barriers to improvement in physical fitness.⁶

National guidelines on physical activity

The 2018 National Physical Activity Guidelines detail recommendations for children, adolescents, adults, and special populations.⁷ The guidelines define physical activity as bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that result in energy expenditure above resting baseline levels, and includes all types, intensities, and domains of activity. Exercise is a subset of physical activity characterized as planned, structured, repetitive, and designed to improve or maintain physical fitness, physical performance, or health.

Highlights from the 2018 guidelines include⁷:

• Preschool-aged children (3 to 5 years of age) should be physically active throughout the day, with as much as 3 hours per day of physical activity of all intensities—light, moderate, and vigorous.
• Older children and adolescents (6 to 17 years) should accumulate 60 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, including aerobic, muscle-strengthening, and bone-strengthening activities.
• Adults of all ages should achieve approximately 150 to 300 minutes of moderate or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous physical activity (or an equivalent combination) per week, along with at least 2 days per week of ­muscle-strengthening activities. Other types of physical activity include flexibility, balance, bone-strengthening, and mind–body exercises.

3-step framework for enhancing physical activity counseling

Merely knowing that physical activity is healthy is not enough, during a patient encounter, to increase the level of physical activity. Therefore, it is imperative to learn and adopt a framework that has proved to yield successful outcomes. The Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) framework, which has predominantly been used to change patient behavior related to alcohol and substance use, is now being utilized by some providers to promote physical activity.⁸ We apply the SBIRT approach in this article, although research is lacking on its clinical utility and outcome measures.

Continue to: SBIRT

 

 

SBIRT: Screening

An office visit provides an opportunity to understand a patient’s level of physical activity. Often, understanding a patient’s baseline level of activity is only asked during a thorough social history, which might not be performed during patient encounters. As physical activity is the primary determinant of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), some health care systems have begun delineating physical activity levels as a vital sign to ensure that the assessment of physical activity is a standard part of every clinical encounter. At a minimum, this serves as a prompt and provides an opportunity to start a conversation around improving physical activity levels when guidelines are not being met.

The exercise vital sign. Assessment and documentation of physical activity in the electronic health record are not yet standardized; however, Kaiser Permanente health plans have implemented the exercise vital sign, or EVS, in its HealthConnect (Epic Systems) electronic health record. The EVS incorporates information about a patient’s:

• days per week of moderate-to-­strenuous exercise (eg, a brisk walk)
• minutes per day, on average, of exercise at this level.

The physical activity vital sign. Intermountain Healthcare implemented the physical activity vital sign, or PAVS, in its iCentra (Cerner Corp.) electronic health record. The 3-question PAVS assessment asks:

• On average, how many days of the week do you perform physical activity or exercise?
• On average, how many total minutes of physical activity or exercise do you perform on those days?
• How would you describe the intensity of your physical activity or exercise: Light (ie, a casual walk)? Moderate (a brisk walk)? Or vigorous (jogging)?

PAVS includes a fourth data point: The physician–user documents whether the patient was counseled to start, increase, maintain, or modify physical activity or exercise.

EVS and the PAVS have demonstrated validity.^9-11

Continue to: Cardiorespiratory fitness as a vital sign

Cardiorespiratory fitness as a vital sign. In 2016, the American Heart Association (AHA) asserted the importance of assessing CRF as a clinical vital sign.¹² CRF is commonly expressed as maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂max = O₂ mL/kg/min) and measured through cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), considered the gold standard by combining conventional graded exercise testing with ventilatory expired gas analysis. CPET is more objective and precise than equations estimating CRF that are derived from peak work rate. AHA recommended that efforts to improve CRF should become standard in clinical encounters, explaining that even a small increase in CRF (eg, 1 or 2 metabolic equivalents^a [METs]) is associated with a considerably (10% to 30%) lower rate of adverse cardiovascular events.¹²

The SBIRT framework, predominantly used to change patient behavior related to alcohol and substance use, is now being utilized by some clinicians to promote physical activity

De Souza de Silva and colleagues revealed an association between each 1-MET increase in CRF and per-person annual health care cost savings (adjusted for age and presence of cardiovascular disease) of $3272 (normal-weight patients), $4252 (overweight), and $6103 (obese).¹³ In its 2016 scientific statement on CRF as a vital sign, AHA listed several methods of estimating CRF and concluded that, although CPET involves a higher level of training, proficiency, equipment, and, therefore, cost, the independent and additive information obtained justifies its use in many patients.¹²

CASE 

Mary Q, 68 years of age, presents for an annual well-woman examination. Body mass index is 32; resting heart rate (HR), 73 bpm; and blood pressure, 126/74 mm Hg. She reports being inactive, except for light walking every day with her dog around the neighborhood, which takes them approximately 15 minutes. She denies any history or signs and symptoms of cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease.

You consider 3 questions before taking next steps regarding increasing Ms. Q’s activity level:

• What is her PAVS?
• Does she need medical clearance before starting an exercise program?
• What would an evidence-based cardiovascular exercise prescription for Ms. Q look like?

SBIRT: Brief intervention

When a patient does not meet the recommended level of physical activity, you have an opportunity to deliver a brief intervention. To do this effectively, you must have adequate understanding of the patient’s receptivity for change. The transtheoretical, or Stages of Change, model proposes that a person typically goes through 5 stages of growth—­pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance—in the process of lifestyle modification. This model highlights the different approaches to exercise adoption and maintenance that need to be taken, based on a given patient’s stage at the moment.

Continue to: Using this framework...

Using this framework, you can help patients realize intrinsic motivation that can facilitate progression through each stage, utilizing techniques such as motivational interviewing—so-called change talk—to increase self-efficacy.¹⁴TABLE 1¹⁵ provides examples of motivational interviewing techniques that can be used during a patient encounter to improve health behaviors, such as physical activity.

Writing the exercise prescription

A patient who wants to increase their level of physical activity should be offered a formal exercise prescription, which has been shown to increase the level of physical activity, particularly in older patients. In fact, a study conducted in Spain in the practices of family physicians found that older patients who received a physical activity prescription increased their activity by 131 minutes per week; and compared to control patients, they doubled the minutes per week devoted to moderate or vigorous physical activity.¹⁶

FITT-VP. The basics of a cardiovascular exercise prescription can be found in the FITT-VP (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type, Volume, and [monitoring of] Progression) framework (TABLE 2^17-19). For most patients, this model includes 3 to 5 days per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity for 30 to 60 minutes per session. For patients with established chronic disease, physical activity provides health benefits but might require modification. Disease-specific patient handouts for exercise can be downloaded, at no cost, through the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) “Exercise Is Medicine” program, which can be found at: www.exerciseismedicine.org/support_page.php/rx-for-health-series.

Determining intensity level. Although CPET is the gold standard for determining a patient’s target intensity level, such a test might be impracticable for a given patient. Surrogate markers of target intensity level can be obtained by measuring maximum HR (HRmax), using a well-known equation²⁰:

HRmax = 220 – age

which is then multiplied by intensity range:

• light: 30%-39%
• moderate: 40%-59%
• vigorous: 60%-89%

or, more preferably, by calculating the HR training zone while accounting for HR at rest (HRrest). This is accomplished by calculating the HR reserve (HRR) (ie, HRR = HRmax – HRrest) and then calculating the target heart rate (THR)²¹:

THR = [HRR × %intensity] + HRrest

Continue to: The THR calculation...

The THR calculation is performed twice, once with a lower %intensity and again with a higher %intensity to develop a training zone based on HRR.

The HRR equation is more accurate than calculating HRmax from 220 – age, because HRR accounts for resting HR, which is often lower in people who are better conditioned.

Another method of calculating intensity for patients who are beginning a physical activity program is the rating of perceived exertion (RPE), which is graded on a scale of 6 to 20: Moderate exercise correlates with an RPE of 12 to 13 (“somewhat hard”); vigorous exercise correlates with an RPE of 14 to 16 (“hard”). By adding a zero to the rating on the RPE scale, the corresponding HR in a healthy adult can be estimated when they are performing an activity at that perceived intensity.²² Moderate exercise therefore correlates with a HR of 120 and 130 bpm.

The so-called talk test can also guide exercise intensity: Light-intensity activity correlates with an ability to sing; moderate-intensity physical activity likely allows the patient to still hold a conversation; and vigorous-intensity activity correlates with an inability to carry on a conversation while exercising.

An exercise prescription should be accompanied by a patient-derived goal, which can be reassessed during a follow-up visit. So-called SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) are tools to help patients set personalized and realistic expectations for physical activity. Meeting the goal of approximately 150 to 300 minutes of moderate or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous physical activity (or an equivalent combination) per week is ideal, but a patient needs to start where they are, at the moment, and gradually increase activity by setting what for them are realistic and sustainable goals.

Continue to: CASE

CASE

With a PAVS of 105 minutes (ie, 15 minutes per day × 7 days) of weekly light-to-moderate exercise walking her dog, Ms. Q does not satisfy current physical activity guidelines. She needs an exercise prescription to incorporate into her lifestyle (see “Cardiovascular exercise prescription,” at left).

First, based on ACSM pre-participation guidelines, Ms. Q does not need medical clearance before initiating light-to-moderate exercise and gradually progressing to ­vigorous-intensity exercise.

Second, in addition to walking the dog for 105 minutes a week, you:

• advise her to start walking for 10 minutes, 3 times per week, at a pace that keeps her HR at 97-104 bpm.
• encourage her to gradually increase the frequency or duration of her walks by no more than 10% per week.

SBIRT: Referral for treatment

When referring a patient to a fitness program or professional, it is essential to consider their preferences, resources, and environment.²³ Community fitness partners are often an excellent referral option for a patient seeking guidance or structure for their exercise program. Using the ACSM ProFinder service, (www.acsm.org/get-stay-certified/find-a-pro) you can search for exercise professionals who have achieved the College’s Gold Standard credential.

Gym memberships or fitness programs might be part of the extra coverage offered by Medicare Advantage Plans, other Medicare health plans, or Medicare Supplement Insurance (Medigap) plans.²⁴

Continue to: CASE

CASE

After providing Ms. Q with her exercise prescription, you refer her to a local gym that participates in the Silver Sneakers fitness and wellness program (for adults ≥ 65 years of age in eligible Medicare plans) to determine whether she qualifies to begin resistance and flexibility training, for which you will write a second exercise prescription (TABLE 3^17-19).

Pre-participation screening

Updated 2015 ACSM exercise pre-participation health screening recommendations attempt to decrease possible barriers to people who are becoming more physically active, by minimizing unnecessary referral to health care providers before they change their level of physical activity. ACSM recommendations on exercise clearance include this guidance²⁵:

• For a patient who is asymptomatic and already physically active—regardless of whether they have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease—medical clearance is unnecessary for moderate-intensity exercise.
• Any patient who has been physically active and asymptomatic but who becomes symptomatic during exercise should immediately discontinue such activity and undergo medical evaluation.
• For a patient who is inactive, ­asymptomatic, and who does not have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, medical clearance for light- or moderate-intensity exercise is unnecessary.
• For inactive, asymptomatic patients who have known cardiovascular, metabolic, or renal disease, medical clearance is recommended.

Digital health

Smartwatches and health apps (eg, CardioCoach, Fitbit, Garmin Connect, Nike Training Club, Strava, and Training Peaks) can provide workouts and offer patients the ability to collect information and even connect with other users through social media platforms. This information can be synced to Apple Health platforms for iPhones (www.apple.com/ios/health/) or through Google Fit (www.google.com/fit/) on Android devices. Primary care physicians who become familiar with health apps might find them useful for select patients who want to use technology to improve their physical activity level.

However, data on the value of using digital apps for increasing physical activity, in relation to their cost, are limited. Additional research is needed to assess their validity.

Billing and coding

For most patients, the physical activity assessment, prescription, and referral are performed in the context of treating another condition (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, obesity, depression) or during a preventive health examination, and are typically covered without additional charge to the patient. An evaluation and management visit for an established patient could be used to bill if > 50% of the office visit was spent face-to-face with a physician, with patient counseling and coordination of care.

Continue to: Physicians and physical therapists...

Physicians and physical therapists can use the therapeutic exercise code (Current Procedural Terminology code 97110) when teaching patients exercises to develop muscle strength and endurance, joint range of motion, and flexibility²⁶ (TABLE 4²⁶).

Conclusion

Physical activity and CRF are strong predictors of premature mortality, even compared to other risk factors, such as cigarette smoking, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and type 2 diabetes.²⁷ Brief physical activity assessment and counseling is an efficient, effective, and cost-effective means to increase physical activity, and presents a unique opportunity for you to encourage lifestyle-based strategies for reducing cardiovascular risk.²⁸

The AHA has asserted the importance of assessing cardiorespiratory fitness as a “vital sign.”

However, it is essential to meet patients where they are before trying to have them progress; it is therefore imperative to assess the individual patient’s level of activity using PAVS. With that information in hand, you can personalize physical activity advice; determine readiness for change and potential barriers for change; assist the patient in setting SMART goals; and arrange follow-up to assess adherence to the exercise prescription. Encourage the patient to call their health insurance plan to determine whether a gym membership or fitness program is covered.

Research is needed to evaluate the value of using digital apps, in light of their cost, to increase physical activity and improve CRF in a clinical setting. Prospective trials should be initiated to determine how routine implementation of CRF assessment in primary care alters the trajectory of clinical care. It is hoped that future research will answer the question: Would such an approach improve clinical outcomes and reduce health care expenditures?¹²

a Defined as O2 consumed while sitting at rest; equivalent to 3.5 mL of O₂ × kg of body weight × min.

CORRESPONDENCE
Matthew Kampert, DO, MS, Sports Medicine, 5555 Transportation Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44125; kamperm@ccf.org

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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