Background and Objectives: The epidemiological data regarding mortality rates of adults with sarcoidosis and non-ischemic cardiovascular disease (CVD) are limited. A retrospective observational analysis was conducted to identify trends and disparities related to sarcoidosis and non-ischemic cardiovascular disease mortality among the adult US population from 1999 to 2022. Methods: We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) WONDER database to extract death certificate data for the adult US population (≥25 years). The age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 persons were calculated, and annual percent changes (APCs) were determined using Joinpoint. Results: Between 1999 and 2022, 23,642 deaths were identified related to non-ischemic CVD + sarcoidosis. The overall AAMR increased from 0.2 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) in 1999 to 0.5 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.6) in 2022. Females had a higher AAMR than males (0.6 vs. 0.5). Non-Hispanic (NH) blacks had the highest AAMR, followed by NH whites and Hispanic or Latinos. The southern region had the highest AAMR (0.7: 95% CI, 0.6–0.7), followed by the Midwest (0.6, 95% CI, 0.54–0.669), the Northeast (0.5, 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.6), and the West (0.4; 95% CI, 0.3–0.4). Urban and rural areas had comparable mortality rates (0.5 vs. 0.6). People aged 65+ had the highest AAMRs. Conclusions: The overall mortality rates for non-ischemic CVD and sarcoidosis have increased in the US from 1999 to 2022. Females and NH blacks had higher AAMRs, while a minimal variation was observed based on geographical regions. Early diagnosis and prompt management are the keys to reducing the mortality burden of non-ischemic CVD plus sarcoidosis.

Background and Aim: Glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs) were initially developed for type 2 diabetes but have gained widespread use for weight management, including among non‐diabetic individuals. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of GLP‐1RA use, describe usage patterns, and explore healthcare providers' (HCPs) perceptions of their efficacy and safety.Methods: A cross‐sectional study was conducted among 657 HCPs from 10 countries using a structured online survey between September and December 2023. Convenience sampling was employed, statistical analyses were performed using STATA 17. Associations between demographic characteristics and perceptions of GLP‐1RAs were analyzed using the chi‐square test.Results: Among 657 HCPs, 59.2% were female and 40.8% were male, with a median age of 36.0 years (IQR: 29.0–44.0) and a median BMI of 26.7 (IQR: 23.8–30.7). Among professional groups, nurses accounted for 44.7%, followed by physicians (36.2%) and allied health professionals (18.7%). Semaglutide (45.7%, 95% CI: 41.8%−49.5%) was the most commonly used GLP‐1RA, followed by Liraglutide (36.9%, 95% CI: 33.2%−40.8%). Other GLP‐1RAs were used less frequently, including Dulaglutide (17.0%, 95% CI: 14.2%−20.1%), Exenatide (14.1%, 95% CI: 11.5%−17.0%), Albiglutide (7.0%, 95% CI: 5.1%−9.2%), and Lixisenatide (8.5%, 95% CI: 6.5%−10.9%. Regarding perceived safety, 68.6% considered GLP‐1RAs safe. Safety perceptions were significantly associated with educational level (p = 0.022), with participants holding higher degrees being more likely to perceive GLP‐1RAs as unsafe (18.3%) compared to those with a bachelor's degree or lower (10.8%). No associations were found with age (p = 0.487), sex (p = 0.729), or BMI (p = 0.089). Similarly, 73.5% of participants considered GLP‐1RAs effective for perceived efficacy. No associations were found with sex (p = 0.663) or BMI (p = 0.446). Older participants (p = 0.011) and those with higher education (p = 0.006) were more likely to perceive GLP‐1RAs as ineffective.Conclusion: This study provides the first prevalence estimate of GLP‐1RA use among HCPs and GLP1‐Ras users and explores the associations between demographic characteristics and perceptions of safety and efficacy. The findings highlight the self‐prescribing practices of these medications for weight management and underscore the need for appropriate monitoring to avoid potential health risks.

Background and Aim: Lubiprostone increases chloride and water secretion in the intestines, and several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of lubiprostone in treating functional constipation. Several new clinical trials have emerged since the previous meta‐analysis conducted in 2020. We conducted this updated meta‐analysis to assess clinical efficacy of lubiprostone in these patients.Methods: A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials published between July 2019 and June 2024 were selected. Cochrane's RoB 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A meta‐analysis was performed and findings were presented using forest plots.Results: A total of 14 studies, comprising 4550 patients, were included in the review. Only 12 studies were pooled in the meta‐analysis. Lubiprostone was associated with greater spontaneous bowel movements (SBM) per week (RR 1.454, 95% CI 1.193–1.771) and SBM within 24 h (RR 1.790, 95% CI 1.491–2.150) in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). However, it was not associated with abdominal pain in either arm (RR 1.415, 95% CI 0.873–2.294). In opioid‐induced constipation (OIC), lubiprostone increased SBM within 24 h (RR 1.277, 95% CI 1.105–1.475) but did not significantly affect abdominal pain (RR 4.321, 95% CI 0.624–29.941). Lubiprostone improved all selected SBM‐related and abdominal pain outcomes in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS‐C).Conclusion: Lubiprostone significantly improves all SBM‐related outcomes. Owing to its good safety and efficacy profile, lubiprostone can be used in the combination regimens for management of CIC, IBS‐C, and OIC.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of Ensifentrine in COPD via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a detailed literature search on Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane on the basis of pre-specified eligibility criteria. We used Review Manager to calculate pooled mean differences (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) using a random effects model. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included RCTs. A total of 4 studies, consisting of 2020 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. The mean age ranged from 62.5 years to 65.5 years in the included studies. All the included studies were at low risk of bias. Ensifentrine 3 mg dose significantly improved the mean peak Forced Expiratory Volume-1 (FEV-1), morning trough FEV-1, TDI score, ERS score, and SGRQ-C score as compared to the placebo, yielding a pooled MD of 149.76 (95% CI, 127.9 to 171.6), 43.93 (95% CI, 23.82 to 64.05), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21, -1.20 (95% CI, -1.99 to -0.40), and -1.92 (95% CI, -3.24 to -0.59), respectively. Ensifentrine is associated with improvements in outcomes related to COPD symptoms such as peak FEV-1, morning trough FEV-1 and TDI in the patients suffering from this chronic disease. It is also associated with improved quality of life as seen by E-RS score and SGRQ-C score.