Citations

AbstractWe present a novel description of Bezold–Jarisch Reflex (BJR) during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in three young female patients with Group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). These three cases presented within 26 months, representing only 0.8% of 11,387 tests on patients with PAH undergoing CPET during this time frame.

AbstractPulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive pulmonary vascular disease that negatively impacts health‐related quality of life (HRQOL). The PAH‐symptoms and impact (PAH‐SYMPACT) questionnaire is a validated disease‐specific patient‐reported outcome (PRO) instrument that assesses a patient's symptoms and the impact of PAH and its treatment on well‐being. We performed a single‐center prospective cohort study of patients with PAH to determine the feasibility of assessing PROs in clinical practice and to determine the association between PAH‐SYMPACT domains and clinical characteristics and outcomes. One hundred and ten patients completed the 1‐day version of the PAH‐SYMPACT questionnaire which consists of 22 Likert‐scale questions that assess HRQOL across four domains: cardiopulmonary (CP) symptoms, cardiovascular (CV) symptoms, physical impact (PI), and cognitive and emotional (CE) impact. Higher scores indicate worse HRQOL. Patients were predominantly female (n = 86, 78%) with a mean age of 57.8 ± 16.2 years. While several patient characteristics were associated with CP and PI domains, few were associated with CV and CE domains. PI and CE impact scores were associated with recent hospitalizations and mortality and CE impact score was independently associated with an increased risk of death after adjustment for disease severity (hazard ratio: 3.29, 95% confidence interval: 1.56–6.91, p = 0.002). In conclusion, the assessment of PROs in clinical practice using the PAH‐SYMPACT questionnaire is both feasible and valuable. PAH‐SYMPACT scores have independent prognostic value and are not adequately reflected by traditional measures of disease severity. These findings underscore the importance of assessing HRQOL in clinical practice.

AbstractIntroductionAvailable evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown.MethodsElectronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission.ResultsCurrent (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06–1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04–1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50–0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16–0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39–0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66–0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79–0.97).ConclusionsFormer but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers.ImplicationsPrior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

Abstract Background: There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics. Methods: Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined. Results: 6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality were 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46–1.70] and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.96–1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and among those with current cancer (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53–0.90). Conclusions: Current cancer, especially among younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among patients with COVID-19; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types. Impact: This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. See related commentary by Egan et al., p. 3

Background: Histological changes induced by gluten in the duodenal mucosa of patients with non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) are poorly defined. Objectives: To evaluate the structural and inflammatory features of NCGS compared to controls and coeliac disease (CeD) with milder enteropathy (Marsh I-II). Methods: Well-oriented biopsies of 262 control cases with normal gastroscopy and histologic findings, 261 CeD, and 175 NCGS biopsies from 9 contributing countries were examined. Villus height (VH, in μm), crypt depth (CrD, in μm), villus-to-crypt ratios (VCR), IELs (intraepithelial lymphocytes/100 enterocytes), and other relevant histological, serologic, and demographic parameters were quantified. Results: The median VH in NCGS was significantly shorter (600, IQR: 400–705) than controls (900, IQR: 667–1112) (p < 0.001). NCGS patients with Marsh I-II had similar VH and VCR to CeD [465 µm (IQR: 390–620) vs. 427 µm (IQR: 348–569, p = 0·176)]. The VCR in NCGS with Marsh 0 was lower than controls (p < 0.001). The median IEL in NCGS with Marsh 0 was higher than controls (23.0 vs. 13.7, p < 0.001). To distinguish Marsh 0 NCGS from controls, an IEL cut-off of 14 showed 79% sensitivity and 55% specificity. IEL densities in Marsh I-II NCGS and CeD groups were similar. Conclusion: NCGS duodenal mucosa exhibits distinctive changes consistent with an intestinal response to luminal antigens, even at the Marsh 0 stage of villus architecture.

Importance Although isotretinoin may rarely be associated with laboratory abnormalities such as hypertriglyceridemia, the optimal approach to laboratory monitoring is uncertain, and there is wide variation in clinical practice. Objective To establish a consensus for isotretinoin laboratory monitoring among a diverse, international cohort of clinical and research experts in acne. Design, Setting, and Participants Using a modified electronic Delphi process, 4 rounds of anonymous electronic surveys were administered from 2021 to 2022. For laboratory tests reaching consensus (≥70% agreement) for inclusion, questions regarding more time-specific monitoring throughout isotretinoin therapy were asked in subsequent rounds. The participants were international board-certified dermatologist acne experts who were selected on a voluntary basis based on involvement in acne-related professional organizations and research. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measured was whether participants could reach consensus on key isotretinoin laboratory monitoring parameters. Results The 22 participants from 5 continents had a mean (SD) time in practice of 23.7 (11.6) years and represented a variety of practice settings. Throughout the 4-round study, participation rates ranged from 90% to 100%. Consensus was achieved for the following: check alanine aminotransferase within a month prior to initiation (89.5%) and at peak dose (89.5%) but not monthly (76.2%) or after treatment completion (73.7%); check triglycerides within a month prior to initiation (89.5%) and at peak dose (78.9%) but not monthly (84.2%) or after treatment completion (73.7%); do not check complete blood cell count or basic metabolic panel parameters at any point during isotretinoin treatment (all >70%); do not check gamma-glutamyl transferase (78.9%), bilirubin (81.0%), albumin (72.7%), total protein (72.7%), low-density lipoprotein (73.7%), high-density lipoprotein (73.7%), or C-reactive protein (77.3%). Conclusions and Relevance This Delphi study identified a core set of laboratory tests that should be evaluated prior to and during treatment with isotretinoin. These results provide valuable data to guide clinical practice and clinical guideline development to optimize laboratory monitoring in patients treated with isotretinoin.