A systematic review of the cardiovascular risk of inhaled anticholinergics in patients with COPD

The long-term use of inhaled anticholinergic agents has recently been suggested to be associated with an excess risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with COPD. We identified 15 published studies that reported on the association between long-term inhaled anticholinergic use and adverse CV outcomes. Only 3 of the studies were adequately designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The first RCT that suggested that anticholinergic agents increased the risk of adverse CV outcomes was the Lung Health Study (LHS). Smokers randomized to inhaled ipratropium had a significantly increased risk of CV death than smokers receiving placebo. The LHS results have been questioned as the statistical tests used in the study were not adjusted for multiple tests and endpoints, a convincing dose-effect relationship between ipratropium use and the adverse CV outcomes was not established, and most of the CV deaths in the ipratropium group occurred in patients who were non-compliant to ipratropium. The Investigating New Standards for Prophylaxis in Reducing Exacerbations (INSPIRE) was a RCT that compared the combination of salmeterol plus fluticasone against tiotropium in patients with COPD. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the salmeterol plus fluticasone group (3%) compared to the tiotropium group (6%). Fatal CV events occurred in 1% of the salmeterol plus fluticasone group compared to 3% in the tiotropium group. The INSPIRE trial was not designed to be a mortality trial, lacked adequate adjudication of fatal outcomes, and lacked a full intention-to-treat analysis of the data. The Understanding Potential Long-Term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial was a RCT comparing tiotropium and placebo in patients with COPD. Follow-up in UPLIFT was planned for 1440 days (4 years) plus 30 days (1470 days) of post-treatment follow-up. At 1440 days with 95% of patient outcome accounted for, tiotropium was associated with a significant 13% reduction in all-cause mortality compared to placebo. However, at 1470 days with only 75% of patient outcome accounted for, tiotropium was associated with a non-significant 11% reduction in all-cause mortality compared to placebo. The relative risks for serious CV events, heart failure, and myocardial infarction were all significantly lower with tiotropium than placebo. It is not certain why such a wide disparity in findings exists among the published studies evaluating the CV risks of inhaled anticholinergic agents. Prospective, adequately powered RCTs are needed to provide more evidence for the CV safety of tiotropium

Potential Benefits of Icosapent Ethyl on the Lipid Profile: Case Studies

The cardiovascular benefits of marine-derived omega-3 fatty acids are supported by epidemiologic and clinical studies. Both healthy patients and those with confirmed coronary heart disease are advised by the American Heart Association to consume omega-3 fatty acids either through dietary fatty fish or fish oil products. We present two case reports of patients with dyslipidemia who were switched from an omega-3 dietary supplement or a prescription omega-3 drug containing eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) to a new prescription EPA-only drug, icosapent ethyl (IPE). Products containing a combination of EPA and DHA, including dietary supplements and prescription products, are more likely to increase low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels compared with pure EPA-only products. The lipid profiles of these two patients were improved with IPE treatment, illustrating the potentially favorable effects of IPE compared with other products containing both EPA and DHA

Sympathetic stimulation increases serum lactate concentrations in patients admitted with sepsis: Implications for resuscitation strategies

BACKGROUND: Diametrically opposed positions exist regarding the deleterious effects of elevated lactate. There are data suggesting that it is a detrimental proxy for tissue hypoperfusion and anaerobic metabolism in sepsis and an alternative viewpoint is that some of the hyperlactatemia produced maybe adaptive. This study was conducted to explore the relationship between serum lactate levels, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), and sympathetic stimulation in patients with sepsis. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data from four community-based hospitals and one academic medical center. 8173 adults were included. Heart rate (HR) was used as a surrogate marker of sympathetic stimulation. HR, MAP, and lactate levels were measured upon presentation. RESULTS: MAP and HR interacted to affect lactate levels with the highest levels observed in patients with low MAP and high HR (3.6 mmol/L) and the lowest in patients with high MAP and low HR (2.2 mmol/L). The overall mortality rate was 12.4%. Each 10 beats/min increase in HR increased the odds of death 6.0% (95% CI 2.6% to 9.4%), each 1 mmol/L increase in lactate increased the odds of death 20.8% (95% CI 17.4% to 24.2%), whereas each 10 mmHg increase in MAP reduced the odds of death 12.3% (95% CI 9.2% to 15.4%). However, HR did not moderate or mediate the association between lactate and death. CONCLUSIONS: In septic patients, lactate production was associated with increased sympathetic activity (HR ≥ 90) and hypotension (MAP \u3c 65 mmHg) and was a significant predictor of mortality. Because HR, lactate, and MAP were associated with mortality, our data support the present strategy of using these measurements to gauge severity of illness upon presentation. Since HR did not moderate or mediate the association between lactate and death, criticisms alleging that lactate caused by sympathetic stimulation is adaptive (i.e., less harmful) do not appear substantiated

Theophylline for the management of respiratory disorders in adults in the 21st century: A scoping review from the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Pulmonary Practice and Research Network.

Theophylline is an oral methylxanthine bronchodilator recommended as alternate therapy for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is not generally recommended for the treatment of other respiratory disorders such as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or hypoxia. Most clinical practice guidelines rely on evidence published prior to the year 2000 to make these recommendations. This scoping review aimed to gather and characterize evidence describing theophylline for the management of respiratory disorders in adults between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2020. Databases searched included Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Scopus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. Studies were included if they were published in English, theophylline was used for any respiratory disorder, and the study outcomes were disease- or patient-oriented. After removal of duplicates, 841 studies were screened and 55 studies were included. Results aligned with current clinical guideline recommendations relegating theophylline as an alternative therapy for the treatment of respiratory disorders, in favor of inhaled corticosteroids and inhaled bronchodilators. This scoping review identified the need for future research including: theophylline versus other medications deemed alternative therapies for asthma and COPD, meta-analyses of low-dose theophylline, and studies evaluating evidence-based patient-oriented outcomes for OSA, hypoxia, ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction, and spinal cord injury-related pulmonary function

COVID-19 Lessons Learned, Lessons Unlearned, Lessons for the Future

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinicians in many different ways. Clinicians have their own experiences and lessons that they have learned from their work in the pandemic. This article outlines a few lessons learned from the eyes of CHEST Critical Care Editorial Board members, namely practices which will be abandoned, novel practices to be adopted moving forward, and proposed changes to the health care system in general. In an attempt to start the discussion of how health care can grow from the pandemic, the editorial board members outline their thoughts on these lessons learned