CHEST Physician

Earlier this year, Representative Greg Murphy, MD, along with several cosponsors, introduced H.R. 7725, the Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act.

If enacted, the EDUCATE Act would cut off federal funding to medical schools that force students or faculty to adopt specific beliefs; discriminate based on race or ethnicity; or have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices or any functional equivalent. The bill would also require accreditation agencies to check that their standards do not push these practices, while still allowing instruction about health issues tied to race or collecting data for research.

In response to the introduction of this act, CHEST published a statement in support of DEI practices and their necessary role within the practice of health care and medical training programs.

It is our belief that health care requires a solid patient-provider therapeutic alliance to achieve successful outcomes, and decades of scientific research have shown that a lack of clinician diversity worsens health disparities. For patients from historically underserved communities, having clinicians who share similar lived experiences almost always leads to significant improvements in patient outcomes. If identity concordance is not feasible, clinicians with considerable exposure to diverse patient populations, equitable approaches to care, and inclusive perspectives on health gained through continuing, comprehensive medical education and professional training can also positively impact outcomes.

Research indicates that a diverse medical workforce improves cultural competence and can help clinicians better meet the needs of patients from diverse backgrounds and ethnicities and that the benefits of diverse learning environments enhance the educational experience of all participants. Racial and ethnic health inequities illuminate the greatest gaps and worst patient outcomes, especially when compounded by disparities related to gender identity, ability, language, immigration status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomics, and other social drivers of health. Research also shows that nearly one-fifth of Latine Americans avoid medical care due to concern about experiencing discrimination, Black Americans have significantly lower life expectancies, and Asian Americans are the only racial group to experience cancer as a leading cause of death. It is also well documented that communities experiencing disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality when compared with White Americans include Black, Latine, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Native Americans.

“In 2023, the CHEST organization shared its organizational values: community, inclusivity, innovation, advocacy, and integrity,” said CHEST President, Jack D. Buckley, MD, MPH, FCCP. “In strong accordance with these values and with our mission to champion the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chest diseases and advance the best patient outcomes, CHEST is firmly committed to the necessity of diversity, equity, and inclusion in health care research, education, and delivery.”

Guided by our core values, CHEST is relentlessly committed to improving the professional’s experience and patient outcomes equally. This commitment compels us to work toward eliminating disparities in the medical field. According to the most recent US Census projections, by 2045, White Americans will no longer be considered a racial majority, with Black, Latine, and Asian Americans continuing to rise. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that our clinician workforce reflects the diversity of its local and national communities.

The underrepresentation of physicians from racially diverse backgrounds is factually clear. Black physicians comprise 5% of the current physician workforce despite Black Americans representing 13% of the population.¹ Similarly, while Native Americans comprise 3% of the United States population, Native American physicians account for less than 1% of the physician workforce, with less than 10% of medical schools reporting total enrollment of more than four Native American students.² Where gender is concerned, women make up about 36% of the physician workforce, a professional disparity that is further exacerbated given the intersections of race and gender, resulting in a significant impact on the current workforce.³ Allowing disinformation to influence the future of medical education and patient care directly contradicts our mission as clinicians dedicated to improving the health of all people.

If physician representation and patient outcomes are linked, as research shows, the lack of diverse medical school representation has dire consequences for matriculation, job recruitment, retention, and promotion. Without supportive policies, programs, and equity-focused curriculums in medical education, we will never close the gap on professional disparities, which means we will similarly never close the gap on health disparities.

Our commitment to our members, all health care professionals, and the field of medicine means that we will stand firm in our defense of DEI today and every day until we have achieved optimal, equitable health for all people in all places. CHEST is committed to an intersectional approach to equitable health care education and delivery. We strive to design solutions that center the most impacted and radiate support outward, ensuring our interventions benefit all others experiencing discrimination.

Read more about CHEST’s commitment to diversity and other advocacy work on the CHEST website.

References

1. AAMC. Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC; 2019. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/data/figure-18-percentage-all-active-physicians-race/ethnicity-2018#:~:text=Diversity%20in%20Medicine%3A%20Facts%20and%20Figures%202019,-Diversity%20in%20Medicine&text=Among%20active%20physicians%2C%2056.2%25%20identified,as%20Black%20or%20African%20American

2. Murphy B. New effort to help Native American pre-meds pursue physician dreams. AMA. January 13, 2022. https://www.ama-assn.org/education/medical-school-diversity/new-effort-help-native-american-pre-meds-pursue-physician-dreams

3. AAMC. U.S. Physician Workforce Data Dashboard. AAMC; 2023. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/report/us-physician-workforce-data-dashboard

Earlier this year, Representative Greg Murphy, MD, along with several cosponsors, introduced H.R. 7725, the Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act.

If enacted, the EDUCATE Act would cut off federal funding to medical schools that force students or faculty to adopt specific beliefs; discriminate based on race or ethnicity; or have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices or any functional equivalent. The bill would also require accreditation agencies to check that their standards do not push these practices, while still allowing instruction about health issues tied to race or collecting data for research.

In response to the introduction of this act, CHEST published a statement in support of DEI practices and their necessary role within the practice of health care and medical training programs.

It is our belief that health care requires a solid patient-provider therapeutic alliance to achieve successful outcomes, and decades of scientific research have shown that a lack of clinician diversity worsens health disparities. For patients from historically underserved communities, having clinicians who share similar lived experiences almost always leads to significant improvements in patient outcomes. If identity concordance is not feasible, clinicians with considerable exposure to diverse patient populations, equitable approaches to care, and inclusive perspectives on health gained through continuing, comprehensive medical education and professional training can also positively impact outcomes.

Research indicates that a diverse medical workforce improves cultural competence and can help clinicians better meet the needs of patients from diverse backgrounds and ethnicities and that the benefits of diverse learning environments enhance the educational experience of all participants. Racial and ethnic health inequities illuminate the greatest gaps and worst patient outcomes, especially when compounded by disparities related to gender identity, ability, language, immigration status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomics, and other social drivers of health. Research also shows that nearly one-fifth of Latine Americans avoid medical care due to concern about experiencing discrimination, Black Americans have significantly lower life expectancies, and Asian Americans are the only racial group to experience cancer as a leading cause of death. It is also well documented that communities experiencing disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality when compared with White Americans include Black, Latine, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Native Americans.

“In 2023, the CHEST organization shared its organizational values: community, inclusivity, innovation, advocacy, and integrity,” said CHEST President, Jack D. Buckley, MD, MPH, FCCP. “In strong accordance with these values and with our mission to champion the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chest diseases and advance the best patient outcomes, CHEST is firmly committed to the necessity of diversity, equity, and inclusion in health care research, education, and delivery.”

Guided by our core values, CHEST is relentlessly committed to improving the professional’s experience and patient outcomes equally. This commitment compels us to work toward eliminating disparities in the medical field. According to the most recent US Census projections, by 2045, White Americans will no longer be considered a racial majority, with Black, Latine, and Asian Americans continuing to rise. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that our clinician workforce reflects the diversity of its local and national communities.

The underrepresentation of physicians from racially diverse backgrounds is factually clear. Black physicians comprise 5% of the current physician workforce despite Black Americans representing 13% of the population.¹ Similarly, while Native Americans comprise 3% of the United States population, Native American physicians account for less than 1% of the physician workforce, with less than 10% of medical schools reporting total enrollment of more than four Native American students.² Where gender is concerned, women make up about 36% of the physician workforce, a professional disparity that is further exacerbated given the intersections of race and gender, resulting in a significant impact on the current workforce.³ Allowing disinformation to influence the future of medical education and patient care directly contradicts our mission as clinicians dedicated to improving the health of all people.

If physician representation and patient outcomes are linked, as research shows, the lack of diverse medical school representation has dire consequences for matriculation, job recruitment, retention, and promotion. Without supportive policies, programs, and equity-focused curriculums in medical education, we will never close the gap on professional disparities, which means we will similarly never close the gap on health disparities.

Our commitment to our members, all health care professionals, and the field of medicine means that we will stand firm in our defense of DEI today and every day until we have achieved optimal, equitable health for all people in all places. CHEST is committed to an intersectional approach to equitable health care education and delivery. We strive to design solutions that center the most impacted and radiate support outward, ensuring our interventions benefit all others experiencing discrimination.

Read more about CHEST’s commitment to diversity and other advocacy work on the CHEST website.

References

1. AAMC. Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC; 2019. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/data/figure-18-percentage-all-active-physicians-race/ethnicity-2018#:~:text=Diversity%20in%20Medicine%3A%20Facts%20and%20Figures%202019,-Diversity%20in%20Medicine&text=Among%20active%20physicians%2C%2056.2%25%20identified,as%20Black%20or%20African%20American

2. Murphy B. New effort to help Native American pre-meds pursue physician dreams. AMA. January 13, 2022. https://www.ama-assn.org/education/medical-school-diversity/new-effort-help-native-american-pre-meds-pursue-physician-dreams

3. AAMC. U.S. Physician Workforce Data Dashboard. AAMC; 2023. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/report/us-physician-workforce-data-dashboard

Earlier this year, Representative Greg Murphy, MD, along with several cosponsors, introduced H.R. 7725, the Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act.

If enacted, the EDUCATE Act would cut off federal funding to medical schools that force students or faculty to adopt specific beliefs; discriminate based on race or ethnicity; or have diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices or any functional equivalent. The bill would also require accreditation agencies to check that their standards do not push these practices, while still allowing instruction about health issues tied to race or collecting data for research.

In response to the introduction of this act, CHEST published a statement in support of DEI practices and their necessary role within the practice of health care and medical training programs.

It is our belief that health care requires a solid patient-provider therapeutic alliance to achieve successful outcomes, and decades of scientific research have shown that a lack of clinician diversity worsens health disparities. For patients from historically underserved communities, having clinicians who share similar lived experiences almost always leads to significant improvements in patient outcomes. If identity concordance is not feasible, clinicians with considerable exposure to diverse patient populations, equitable approaches to care, and inclusive perspectives on health gained through continuing, comprehensive medical education and professional training can also positively impact outcomes.

Research indicates that a diverse medical workforce improves cultural competence and can help clinicians better meet the needs of patients from diverse backgrounds and ethnicities and that the benefits of diverse learning environments enhance the educational experience of all participants. Racial and ethnic health inequities illuminate the greatest gaps and worst patient outcomes, especially when compounded by disparities related to gender identity, ability, language, immigration status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomics, and other social drivers of health. Research also shows that nearly one-fifth of Latine Americans avoid medical care due to concern about experiencing discrimination, Black Americans have significantly lower life expectancies, and Asian Americans are the only racial group to experience cancer as a leading cause of death. It is also well documented that communities experiencing disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality when compared with White Americans include Black, Latine, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Native Americans.

“In 2023, the CHEST organization shared its organizational values: community, inclusivity, innovation, advocacy, and integrity,” said CHEST President, Jack D. Buckley, MD, MPH, FCCP. “In strong accordance with these values and with our mission to champion the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chest diseases and advance the best patient outcomes, CHEST is firmly committed to the necessity of diversity, equity, and inclusion in health care research, education, and delivery.”

Guided by our core values, CHEST is relentlessly committed to improving the professional’s experience and patient outcomes equally. This commitment compels us to work toward eliminating disparities in the medical field. According to the most recent US Census projections, by 2045, White Americans will no longer be considered a racial majority, with Black, Latine, and Asian Americans continuing to rise. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that our clinician workforce reflects the diversity of its local and national communities.

The underrepresentation of physicians from racially diverse backgrounds is factually clear. Black physicians comprise 5% of the current physician workforce despite Black Americans representing 13% of the population.¹ Similarly, while Native Americans comprise 3% of the United States population, Native American physicians account for less than 1% of the physician workforce, with less than 10% of medical schools reporting total enrollment of more than four Native American students.² Where gender is concerned, women make up about 36% of the physician workforce, a professional disparity that is further exacerbated given the intersections of race and gender, resulting in a significant impact on the current workforce.³ Allowing disinformation to influence the future of medical education and patient care directly contradicts our mission as clinicians dedicated to improving the health of all people.

If physician representation and patient outcomes are linked, as research shows, the lack of diverse medical school representation has dire consequences for matriculation, job recruitment, retention, and promotion. Without supportive policies, programs, and equity-focused curriculums in medical education, we will never close the gap on professional disparities, which means we will similarly never close the gap on health disparities.

Our commitment to our members, all health care professionals, and the field of medicine means that we will stand firm in our defense of DEI today and every day until we have achieved optimal, equitable health for all people in all places. CHEST is committed to an intersectional approach to equitable health care education and delivery. We strive to design solutions that center the most impacted and radiate support outward, ensuring our interventions benefit all others experiencing discrimination.

Read more about CHEST’s commitment to diversity and other advocacy work on the CHEST website.

References

1. AAMC. Figure 18. Percentage of all active physicians by race/ethnicity, 2018. AAMC; 2019. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/data/figure-18-percentage-all-active-physicians-race/ethnicity-2018#:~:text=Diversity%20in%20Medicine%3A%20Facts%20and%20Figures%202019,-Diversity%20in%20Medicine&text=Among%20active%20physicians%2C%2056.2%25%20identified,as%20Black%20or%20African%20American

2. Murphy B. New effort to help Native American pre-meds pursue physician dreams. AMA. January 13, 2022. https://www.ama-assn.org/education/medical-school-diversity/new-effort-help-native-american-pre-meds-pursue-physician-dreams

3. AAMC. U.S. Physician Workforce Data Dashboard. AAMC; 2023. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/report/us-physician-workforce-data-dashboard

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a clinically important organism that infects patients with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB). In the United States, the estimated prevalence of NCFB is 213 per 100,000 across all age groups and 813 per 100,000 in the over 65 age group.¹ A retrospective cohort study suggests the incidence of NCFB as ascertained from International Classification of Diseases codes may significantly underestimate its true prevalence.²

As the incidence of patients with NCFB continues to increase, the impact of the Pseudomonas infection is expected to grow. A recent retrospective cohort study of commercial claims from IQVIA’s PharMetrics Plus database for the period 2006 to 2020 showed that patients with NCFB and Pseudomonas infection had on average 2.58 hospital admissions per year, with a mean length of stay of 9.94 (± 11.06) days, compared with 1.18 admissions per year, with a mean length of stay of 6.5 (± 8.42) days, in patients with Pseudomonas-negative NCFB. The same trend applied to 30-day readmissions and ICU admissions, 1.32 (± 2.51 days) vs 0.47 (± 1.30 days) and 0.95 (± 1.62 days) vs 0.33 (± 0.76 days), respectively. The differential cost of care per patient per year between patients with NCFB with and without Pseudomonas infection ranged from $55,225 to $315,901.³

CHEST

Recent data from the United States Bronchiectasis Registry showed the probability of acquiring Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 3% annually.⁴ The prevalence of Pseudomonas infection in a large, geographically diverse cohort in the United States was quoted at 15%.⁵ A retrospective analysis of the European Bronchiectasis Registry database showed Pseudomonas infection was the most commonly isolated pathogen (21.8%).⁶

Given the high incidence and prevalence of NCFB, the high prevalence of Pseudomonas infection in patients with NCFB, and the associated costs and morbidity from infection, identifying effective treatments has become a priority. The British, Spanish (SEPAR), South African, and European bronchiectasis guidelines outline several antibiotic regimens meant to achieve eradication. Generally, there is induction with a (1) quinolone, (2) β-lactam + aminoglycoside, or (3) quinolone with an inhaled antibiotic followed by three months of maintenance inhaled antibiotics.^7-10 SEPAR allows for retreatment for recurrence at any time during the first year with any regimen.

For chronic Pseudomonas infection, SEPAR recommends treatment with inhaled antibiotics for patients with more than two exacerbations or one hospitalization, while the threshold in the British and European guidelines is more than three exacerbations. Azithromycin may be used for those who are intolerant or allergic to the nebulized antibiotics. It is worth noting that in the United States, the antibiotics colistin, ciprofloxacin, aztreonam, gentamicin, and tobramycin are administered off label for this indication. A systematic review found a 10% rate of bronchospasm in the treated group compared with 2.3% in the control group, and premedication with albuterol is often needed.¹¹

Unfortunately, the data supporting the listed eradication and suppressive regimens are weak. A systematic review and meta-analysis of six observational studies including 289 patients showed a 12-month eradication rate of only 40% (95% CI, 34-45; P < 0.00001; I² = 0).¹² These results are disappointing and identify a need for further research into the manner in which Pseudomonas infection interacts with the host lung.

We currently know Pseudomonas infection evades antibiotics and host defenses by accumulating mutations and deletions. These include loss-of-function mutations in mucA (mucoidy), lasR (quorum-sensing), mexS (regulates the antibiotic efflux pump), and other genes related to the production of the polysaccharides Psl and Pel (which contribute to biofilm formation).¹³ There may also be differences in low and high bacteria microbial networks that interact differently with host cytokines to create an unstable environment that predisposes to exacerbation.¹⁴

In an attempt to improve our eradication and suppression rates, investigators have begun to target specific aspects of Pseudomonas infection behavior. The GREAT-2 trial compares gremubamab (a bivalent, bispecific, monoclonal antibody targeting Psl exopolysaccharide and the type 3 secretion system component of PcrV) with placebo in patients with chronic Pseudomonas infection. A phase II trial with the phosphodiesterase inhibitor esifentrine, a phase III trial with a reversible DPP1 inhibitor called brensocatib (ASPEN), and a phase II trial with the CatC inhibitor BI 1291583 (Airleaf) are also being conducted. Each of these agents targets mediators of neutrophil inflammation.

In summary, NCFB with Pseudomonas infection is common and leads to an increase in costs, respiratory exacerbations, and hospitalizations. While eradication and suppression are recommended, they are difficult to achieve and require sustained durations of expensive medications that can be difficult to tolerate. Antibiotic therapies will continue to be studied (the ERASE randomized controlled trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of tobramycin to eradicate Pseudomonas infection is currently underway), but targeted therapies represent a promising new approach to combating this stubbornly resistant bacteria. The NCFB community will be watching closely to see whether medicines targeting molecular behavior and host interaction can achieve what antibiotic regimens thus far have not: consistent and sustainable eradication.
 

Dr. Green is Assistant Professor in Medicine, Medical Director, Bronchiectasis Program, UMass Chan/Baystate Health, Chest Infections Section, Member-at-Large

References

1. Weycker D, Hansen GL, Seifer FD. Prevalence and incidence of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis among US adults in 2013. Chron Respir Dis. 2017;14(4):377-384. doi: 10.1177/1479972317709649

2. Green O, Liautaud S, Knee A, Modahl L. Measuring accuracy of International Classification of Diseases codes in identification of patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. ERJ Open Res. 2024;10(2):00715-2023. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00715-2023

3. Franklin M, Minshall ME, Pontenani F, Devarajan S. Impact of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on resource utilization and costs in patients with exacerbated non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. J Med Econ. 2024;27(1):671-677. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2024.2340382

4. Aksamit TR, Locantore N, Addrizzo-Harris D, et al. Five-year outcomes among U.S. bronchiectasis and NTM research registry patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. Accepted manuscript. Published online April 26, 2024.

5. Dean SG, Blakney RA, Ricotta EE, et al. Bronchiectasis-associated infections and outcomes in a large, geographically diverse electronic health record cohort in the United States. BMC Pulm Med. 2024;24(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12890-024-02973-3

6. Chalmers JD, Polverino E, Crichton ML, et al. Bronchiectasis in Europe: data on disease characteristics from the European Bronchiectasis registry (EMBARC). Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(7):637-649. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00093-0

7. Polverino E, Goeminne PC, McDonnell MJ, et al. European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J. 2017;50(3):1700629. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00629-2017

8. Martínez-García MÁ, Máiz L, Olveira C, et al. Spanish guidelines on treatment of bronchiectasis in adults. Arch Bronconeumol. 2018;54(2):88-98. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2017.07.016

9. Hill AT, Sullivan AL, Chalmers JD, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline for bronchiectasis in adults. Thorax. 2019;74(Suppl 1):1-69. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212463

10. Goolam Mahomed A, Maasdorp SD, Barnes R, et al. South African Thoracic Society position statement on the management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in adults: 2023. Afr J Thorac Crit Care Med. 2023;29(2):10.7196/AJTCCM. 2023.v29i2.647. doi: 10.7196/AJTCCM.2023.v29i2.647

11. Brodt AM, Stovold E, Zhang L. Inhaled antibiotics for stable non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a systematic review. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(2):382-393. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00018414

12. Conceição M, Shteinberg M, Goeminne P, Altenburg J, Chalmers JD. Eradication treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in adults with bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev. 2024;33(171):230178. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0178-2023

13. Hilliam Y, Moore MP, Lamont IL, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa adaptation and diversification in the non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis lung. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(4):1602108. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02108-2016

14. Gramegna A, Kumar Narayana J, Amati F, et al. Microbial inflammatory networks in bronchiectasis exacerbators with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Chest. 2023;164(1):65-68. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.02.014

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a clinically important organism that infects patients with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB). In the United States, the estimated prevalence of NCFB is 213 per 100,000 across all age groups and 813 per 100,000 in the over 65 age group.¹ A retrospective cohort study suggests the incidence of NCFB as ascertained from International Classification of Diseases codes may significantly underestimate its true prevalence.²

As the incidence of patients with NCFB continues to increase, the impact of the Pseudomonas infection is expected to grow. A recent retrospective cohort study of commercial claims from IQVIA’s PharMetrics Plus database for the period 2006 to 2020 showed that patients with NCFB and Pseudomonas infection had on average 2.58 hospital admissions per year, with a mean length of stay of 9.94 (± 11.06) days, compared with 1.18 admissions per year, with a mean length of stay of 6.5 (± 8.42) days, in patients with Pseudomonas-negative NCFB. The same trend applied to 30-day readmissions and ICU admissions, 1.32 (± 2.51 days) vs 0.47 (± 1.30 days) and 0.95 (± 1.62 days) vs 0.33 (± 0.76 days), respectively. The differential cost of care per patient per year between patients with NCFB with and without Pseudomonas infection ranged from $55,225 to $315,901.³

CHEST

Recent data from the United States Bronchiectasis Registry showed the probability of acquiring Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 3% annually.⁴ The prevalence of Pseudomonas infection in a large, geographically diverse cohort in the United States was quoted at 15%.⁵ A retrospective analysis of the European Bronchiectasis Registry database showed Pseudomonas infection was the most commonly isolated pathogen (21.8%).⁶

Given the high incidence and prevalence of NCFB, the high prevalence of Pseudomonas infection in patients with NCFB, and the associated costs and morbidity from infection, identifying effective treatments has become a priority. The British, Spanish (SEPAR), South African, and European bronchiectasis guidelines outline several antibiotic regimens meant to achieve eradication. Generally, there is induction with a (1) quinolone, (2) β-lactam + aminoglycoside, or (3) quinolone with an inhaled antibiotic followed by three months of maintenance inhaled antibiotics.^7-10 SEPAR allows for retreatment for recurrence at any time during the first year with any regimen.

For chronic Pseudomonas infection, SEPAR recommends treatment with inhaled antibiotics for patients with more than two exacerbations or one hospitalization, while the threshold in the British and European guidelines is more than three exacerbations. Azithromycin may be used for those who are intolerant or allergic to the nebulized antibiotics. It is worth noting that in the United States, the antibiotics colistin, ciprofloxacin, aztreonam, gentamicin, and tobramycin are administered off label for this indication. A systematic review found a 10% rate of bronchospasm in the treated group compared with 2.3% in the control group, and premedication with albuterol is often needed.¹¹

Unfortunately, the data supporting the listed eradication and suppressive regimens are weak. A systematic review and meta-analysis of six observational studies including 289 patients showed a 12-month eradication rate of only 40% (95% CI, 34-45; P < 0.00001; I² = 0).¹² These results are disappointing and identify a need for further research into the manner in which Pseudomonas infection interacts with the host lung.

We currently know Pseudomonas infection evades antibiotics and host defenses by accumulating mutations and deletions. These include loss-of-function mutations in mucA (mucoidy), lasR (quorum-sensing), mexS (regulates the antibiotic efflux pump), and other genes related to the production of the polysaccharides Psl and Pel (which contribute to biofilm formation).¹³ There may also be differences in low and high bacteria microbial networks that interact differently with host cytokines to create an unstable environment that predisposes to exacerbation.¹⁴

In an attempt to improve our eradication and suppression rates, investigators have begun to target specific aspects of Pseudomonas infection behavior. The GREAT-2 trial compares gremubamab (a bivalent, bispecific, monoclonal antibody targeting Psl exopolysaccharide and the type 3 secretion system component of PcrV) with placebo in patients with chronic Pseudomonas infection. A phase II trial with the phosphodiesterase inhibitor esifentrine, a phase III trial with a reversible DPP1 inhibitor called brensocatib (ASPEN), and a phase II trial with the CatC inhibitor BI 1291583 (Airleaf) are also being conducted. Each of these agents targets mediators of neutrophil inflammation.

In summary, NCFB with Pseudomonas infection is common and leads to an increase in costs, respiratory exacerbations, and hospitalizations. While eradication and suppression are recommended, they are difficult to achieve and require sustained durations of expensive medications that can be difficult to tolerate. Antibiotic therapies will continue to be studied (the ERASE randomized controlled trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of tobramycin to eradicate Pseudomonas infection is currently underway), but targeted therapies represent a promising new approach to combating this stubbornly resistant bacteria. The NCFB community will be watching closely to see whether medicines targeting molecular behavior and host interaction can achieve what antibiotic regimens thus far have not: consistent and sustainable eradication.
 

Dr. Green is Assistant Professor in Medicine, Medical Director, Bronchiectasis Program, UMass Chan/Baystate Health, Chest Infections Section, Member-at-Large

References

1. Weycker D, Hansen GL, Seifer FD. Prevalence and incidence of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis among US adults in 2013. Chron Respir Dis. 2017;14(4):377-384. doi: 10.1177/1479972317709649

2. Green O, Liautaud S, Knee A, Modahl L. Measuring accuracy of International Classification of Diseases codes in identification of patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. ERJ Open Res. 2024;10(2):00715-2023. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00715-2023

3. Franklin M, Minshall ME, Pontenani F, Devarajan S. Impact of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on resource utilization and costs in patients with exacerbated non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. J Med Econ. 2024;27(1):671-677. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2024.2340382

4. Aksamit TR, Locantore N, Addrizzo-Harris D, et al. Five-year outcomes among U.S. bronchiectasis and NTM research registry patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. Accepted manuscript. Published online April 26, 2024.

5. Dean SG, Blakney RA, Ricotta EE, et al. Bronchiectasis-associated infections and outcomes in a large, geographically diverse electronic health record cohort in the United States. BMC Pulm Med. 2024;24(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12890-024-02973-3

6. Chalmers JD, Polverino E, Crichton ML, et al. Bronchiectasis in Europe: data on disease characteristics from the European Bronchiectasis registry (EMBARC). Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(7):637-649. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00093-0

7. Polverino E, Goeminne PC, McDonnell MJ, et al. European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J. 2017;50(3):1700629. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00629-2017

8. Martínez-García MÁ, Máiz L, Olveira C, et al. Spanish guidelines on treatment of bronchiectasis in adults. Arch Bronconeumol. 2018;54(2):88-98. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2017.07.016

9. Hill AT, Sullivan AL, Chalmers JD, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline for bronchiectasis in adults. Thorax. 2019;74(Suppl 1):1-69. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212463

10. Goolam Mahomed A, Maasdorp SD, Barnes R, et al. South African Thoracic Society position statement on the management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in adults: 2023. Afr J Thorac Crit Care Med. 2023;29(2):10.7196/AJTCCM. 2023.v29i2.647. doi: 10.7196/AJTCCM.2023.v29i2.647

11. Brodt AM, Stovold E, Zhang L. Inhaled antibiotics for stable non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a systematic review. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(2):382-393. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00018414

12. Conceição M, Shteinberg M, Goeminne P, Altenburg J, Chalmers JD. Eradication treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in adults with bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev. 2024;33(171):230178. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0178-2023

13. Hilliam Y, Moore MP, Lamont IL, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa adaptation and diversification in the non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis lung. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(4):1602108. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02108-2016

14. Gramegna A, Kumar Narayana J, Amati F, et al. Microbial inflammatory networks in bronchiectasis exacerbators with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Chest. 2023;164(1):65-68. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.02.014

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a clinically important organism that infects patients with noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB). In the United States, the estimated prevalence of NCFB is 213 per 100,000 across all age groups and 813 per 100,000 in the over 65 age group.¹ A retrospective cohort study suggests the incidence of NCFB as ascertained from International Classification of Diseases codes may significantly underestimate its true prevalence.²

As the incidence of patients with NCFB continues to increase, the impact of the Pseudomonas infection is expected to grow. A recent retrospective cohort study of commercial claims from IQVIA’s PharMetrics Plus database for the period 2006 to 2020 showed that patients with NCFB and Pseudomonas infection had on average 2.58 hospital admissions per year, with a mean length of stay of 9.94 (± 11.06) days, compared with 1.18 admissions per year, with a mean length of stay of 6.5 (± 8.42) days, in patients with Pseudomonas-negative NCFB. The same trend applied to 30-day readmissions and ICU admissions, 1.32 (± 2.51 days) vs 0.47 (± 1.30 days) and 0.95 (± 1.62 days) vs 0.33 (± 0.76 days), respectively. The differential cost of care per patient per year between patients with NCFB with and without Pseudomonas infection ranged from $55,225 to $315,901.³

CHEST

Recent data from the United States Bronchiectasis Registry showed the probability of acquiring Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 3% annually.⁴ The prevalence of Pseudomonas infection in a large, geographically diverse cohort in the United States was quoted at 15%.⁵ A retrospective analysis of the European Bronchiectasis Registry database showed Pseudomonas infection was the most commonly isolated pathogen (21.8%).⁶

Given the high incidence and prevalence of NCFB, the high prevalence of Pseudomonas infection in patients with NCFB, and the associated costs and morbidity from infection, identifying effective treatments has become a priority. The British, Spanish (SEPAR), South African, and European bronchiectasis guidelines outline several antibiotic regimens meant to achieve eradication. Generally, there is induction with a (1) quinolone, (2) β-lactam + aminoglycoside, or (3) quinolone with an inhaled antibiotic followed by three months of maintenance inhaled antibiotics.^7-10 SEPAR allows for retreatment for recurrence at any time during the first year with any regimen.

For chronic Pseudomonas infection, SEPAR recommends treatment with inhaled antibiotics for patients with more than two exacerbations or one hospitalization, while the threshold in the British and European guidelines is more than three exacerbations. Azithromycin may be used for those who are intolerant or allergic to the nebulized antibiotics. It is worth noting that in the United States, the antibiotics colistin, ciprofloxacin, aztreonam, gentamicin, and tobramycin are administered off label for this indication. A systematic review found a 10% rate of bronchospasm in the treated group compared with 2.3% in the control group, and premedication with albuterol is often needed.¹¹

Unfortunately, the data supporting the listed eradication and suppressive regimens are weak. A systematic review and meta-analysis of six observational studies including 289 patients showed a 12-month eradication rate of only 40% (95% CI, 34-45; P < 0.00001; I² = 0).¹² These results are disappointing and identify a need for further research into the manner in which Pseudomonas infection interacts with the host lung.

We currently know Pseudomonas infection evades antibiotics and host defenses by accumulating mutations and deletions. These include loss-of-function mutations in mucA (mucoidy), lasR (quorum-sensing), mexS (regulates the antibiotic efflux pump), and other genes related to the production of the polysaccharides Psl and Pel (which contribute to biofilm formation).¹³ There may also be differences in low and high bacteria microbial networks that interact differently with host cytokines to create an unstable environment that predisposes to exacerbation.¹⁴

In an attempt to improve our eradication and suppression rates, investigators have begun to target specific aspects of Pseudomonas infection behavior. The GREAT-2 trial compares gremubamab (a bivalent, bispecific, monoclonal antibody targeting Psl exopolysaccharide and the type 3 secretion system component of PcrV) with placebo in patients with chronic Pseudomonas infection. A phase II trial with the phosphodiesterase inhibitor esifentrine, a phase III trial with a reversible DPP1 inhibitor called brensocatib (ASPEN), and a phase II trial with the CatC inhibitor BI 1291583 (Airleaf) are also being conducted. Each of these agents targets mediators of neutrophil inflammation.

In summary, NCFB with Pseudomonas infection is common and leads to an increase in costs, respiratory exacerbations, and hospitalizations. While eradication and suppression are recommended, they are difficult to achieve and require sustained durations of expensive medications that can be difficult to tolerate. Antibiotic therapies will continue to be studied (the ERASE randomized controlled trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of tobramycin to eradicate Pseudomonas infection is currently underway), but targeted therapies represent a promising new approach to combating this stubbornly resistant bacteria. The NCFB community will be watching closely to see whether medicines targeting molecular behavior and host interaction can achieve what antibiotic regimens thus far have not: consistent and sustainable eradication.
 

Dr. Green is Assistant Professor in Medicine, Medical Director, Bronchiectasis Program, UMass Chan/Baystate Health, Chest Infections Section, Member-at-Large

References

1. Weycker D, Hansen GL, Seifer FD. Prevalence and incidence of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis among US adults in 2013. Chron Respir Dis. 2017;14(4):377-384. doi: 10.1177/1479972317709649

2. Green O, Liautaud S, Knee A, Modahl L. Measuring accuracy of International Classification of Diseases codes in identification of patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. ERJ Open Res. 2024;10(2):00715-2023. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00715-2023

3. Franklin M, Minshall ME, Pontenani F, Devarajan S. Impact of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on resource utilization and costs in patients with exacerbated non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. J Med Econ. 2024;27(1):671-677. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2024.2340382

4. Aksamit TR, Locantore N, Addrizzo-Harris D, et al. Five-year outcomes among U.S. bronchiectasis and NTM research registry patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. Accepted manuscript. Published online April 26, 2024.

5. Dean SG, Blakney RA, Ricotta EE, et al. Bronchiectasis-associated infections and outcomes in a large, geographically diverse electronic health record cohort in the United States. BMC Pulm Med. 2024;24(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12890-024-02973-3

6. Chalmers JD, Polverino E, Crichton ML, et al. Bronchiectasis in Europe: data on disease characteristics from the European Bronchiectasis registry (EMBARC). Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(7):637-649. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(23)00093-0

7. Polverino E, Goeminne PC, McDonnell MJ, et al. European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis. Eur Respir J. 2017;50(3):1700629. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00629-2017

8. Martínez-García MÁ, Máiz L, Olveira C, et al. Spanish guidelines on treatment of bronchiectasis in adults. Arch Bronconeumol. 2018;54(2):88-98. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2017.07.016

9. Hill AT, Sullivan AL, Chalmers JD, et al. British Thoracic Society guideline for bronchiectasis in adults. Thorax. 2019;74(Suppl 1):1-69. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212463

10. Goolam Mahomed A, Maasdorp SD, Barnes R, et al. South African Thoracic Society position statement on the management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in adults: 2023. Afr J Thorac Crit Care Med. 2023;29(2):10.7196/AJTCCM. 2023.v29i2.647. doi: 10.7196/AJTCCM.2023.v29i2.647

11. Brodt AM, Stovold E, Zhang L. Inhaled antibiotics for stable non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: a systematic review. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(2):382-393. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00018414

12. Conceição M, Shteinberg M, Goeminne P, Altenburg J, Chalmers JD. Eradication treatment for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in adults with bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir Rev. 2024;33(171):230178. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0178-2023

13. Hilliam Y, Moore MP, Lamont IL, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa adaptation and diversification in the non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis lung. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(4):1602108. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02108-2016

14. Gramegna A, Kumar Narayana J, Amati F, et al. Microbial inflammatory networks in bronchiectasis exacerbators with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Chest. 2023;164(1):65-68. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.02.014

Sleep Medicine Network

Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section

Considering the recent Olympics, it is timely to review the importance of sleep for optimal athletic performance. When surveyed, 20% to 50% of athletes report poor or insufficient sleep, with consequences across four categories.^1,2

Athletic performance: Objective measures of athletic performance, such as oxygen-carrying capacity during cardiopulmonary exercise and even sport-specific accuracy measures, like shooting percentage in basketball, have been shown to worsen with decreased sleep.

CHEST

CHEST

References

1. Cook JD, Charest J. Sleep and performance in professional athletes. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2023;9(1):56-81.



2. Charest J, Grandner MA. Sleep and athletic performance: impacts on physical performance, mental performance, injury risk and recovery, and mental health. Sleep Med Clin. 2020;15(1):41-57.

Sleep Medicine Network

Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section

Considering the recent Olympics, it is timely to review the importance of sleep for optimal athletic performance. When surveyed, 20% to 50% of athletes report poor or insufficient sleep, with consequences across four categories.^1,2

Athletic performance: Objective measures of athletic performance, such as oxygen-carrying capacity during cardiopulmonary exercise and even sport-specific accuracy measures, like shooting percentage in basketball, have been shown to worsen with decreased sleep.

CHEST

CHEST

References

1. Cook JD, Charest J. Sleep and performance in professional athletes. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2023;9(1):56-81.



2. Charest J, Grandner MA. Sleep and athletic performance: impacts on physical performance, mental performance, injury risk and recovery, and mental health. Sleep Med Clin. 2020;15(1):41-57.

Sleep Medicine Network

Respiratory-Related Sleep Disorders Section

Considering the recent Olympics, it is timely to review the importance of sleep for optimal athletic performance. When surveyed, 20% to 50% of athletes report poor or insufficient sleep, with consequences across four categories.^1,2

Athletic performance: Objective measures of athletic performance, such as oxygen-carrying capacity during cardiopulmonary exercise and even sport-specific accuracy measures, like shooting percentage in basketball, have been shown to worsen with decreased sleep.

CHEST

CHEST

References

1. Cook JD, Charest J. Sleep and performance in professional athletes. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2023;9(1):56-81.



2. Charest J, Grandner MA. Sleep and athletic performance: impacts on physical performance, mental performance, injury risk and recovery, and mental health. Sleep Med Clin. 2020;15(1):41-57.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Occupational and Environmental Health Section

CHEST

CHEST

CHEST

The kitchen is considered the heart of the home, but recent discoveries have raised concerns about whether this beloved space might also pose hidden health risks. Gas stoves, present in 38% of U.S. homes, generate multiple pollutants including nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), a known respiratory irritant.¹ Studies have identified a correlation between NO₂ levels and respiratory conditions, with children being particularly vulnerable.² The association between domestic NO₂ exposure from gas stoves and conditions such as asthma has led to increased scrutiny of indoor air quality.

Studies have demonstrated that households using gas stoves have higher indoor NO₂ levels, with levels that far exceed the EPA national ambient air quality standards.³ While the predominance of studies have looked at a correlation with pediatric pulmonary processes, there is also evidence of increased lung function loss in patients who smoke and have COPD.⁴

Switching from gas to electric stoves is one proposed solution to mitigate exposure to NO₂. Evidence suggests that electric stoves significantly reduce indoor NO₂ levels, lowering the risk of respiratory illnesses.

Another proposed solution has been to utilize hoods; however, capture efficiency is variable and some recycle the air and return it indoors.⁵ While existing data indicates a connection between gas stove use and respiratory health risks, conclusive evidence examining the magnitude and mechanisms linking these factors to chronic lung diseases is still needed. Comprehensive studies will help determine whether the kitchen staple—a gas stove—is indeed a friend or a foe to our respiratory health.

References

1. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Appliances in U.S. homes, by household income, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%203.5.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2024.

2. Belanger K, Holford TR, Gent JF, Hill ME, Kezik JM, Leaderer BP. Household levels of nitrogen dioxide and pediatric asthma severity. Epidemiology. 2013;24(2):320-330.

3. Singer BC, Pass RZ, Delp WW, Lorenzetti DM, Maddalena RL. Pollutant concentrations and emission rates from natural gas cooking burners without and with range hood exhaust in nine California homes. Building and Environment. 2017;122:215-229.

4. Hansel NN, Woo H, Koehler K, et al. Indoor pollution and lung function decline in current and former smokers: SPIROMICS AIR. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2023;208(10):1042-1051.

5. Nassikas NJ, McCormack MC, Ewart G, et al. Indoor air sources of outdoor air pollution: health consequences, policy, and recommendations: an Official American Thoracic Society Workshop report. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2024;21(3), 365-376.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Occupational and Environmental Health Section

CHEST

CHEST

CHEST

The kitchen is considered the heart of the home, but recent discoveries have raised concerns about whether this beloved space might also pose hidden health risks. Gas stoves, present in 38% of U.S. homes, generate multiple pollutants including nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), a known respiratory irritant.¹ Studies have identified a correlation between NO₂ levels and respiratory conditions, with children being particularly vulnerable.² The association between domestic NO₂ exposure from gas stoves and conditions such as asthma has led to increased scrutiny of indoor air quality.

Studies have demonstrated that households using gas stoves have higher indoor NO₂ levels, with levels that far exceed the EPA national ambient air quality standards.³ While the predominance of studies have looked at a correlation with pediatric pulmonary processes, there is also evidence of increased lung function loss in patients who smoke and have COPD.⁴

Switching from gas to electric stoves is one proposed solution to mitigate exposure to NO₂. Evidence suggests that electric stoves significantly reduce indoor NO₂ levels, lowering the risk of respiratory illnesses.

Another proposed solution has been to utilize hoods; however, capture efficiency is variable and some recycle the air and return it indoors.⁵ While existing data indicates a connection between gas stove use and respiratory health risks, conclusive evidence examining the magnitude and mechanisms linking these factors to chronic lung diseases is still needed. Comprehensive studies will help determine whether the kitchen staple—a gas stove—is indeed a friend or a foe to our respiratory health.

References

1. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Appliances in U.S. homes, by household income, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%203.5.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2024.

2. Belanger K, Holford TR, Gent JF, Hill ME, Kezik JM, Leaderer BP. Household levels of nitrogen dioxide and pediatric asthma severity. Epidemiology. 2013;24(2):320-330.

3. Singer BC, Pass RZ, Delp WW, Lorenzetti DM, Maddalena RL. Pollutant concentrations and emission rates from natural gas cooking burners without and with range hood exhaust in nine California homes. Building and Environment. 2017;122:215-229.

4. Hansel NN, Woo H, Koehler K, et al. Indoor pollution and lung function decline in current and former smokers: SPIROMICS AIR. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2023;208(10):1042-1051.

5. Nassikas NJ, McCormack MC, Ewart G, et al. Indoor air sources of outdoor air pollution: health consequences, policy, and recommendations: an Official American Thoracic Society Workshop report. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2024;21(3), 365-376.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Occupational and Environmental Health Section

CHEST

CHEST

CHEST

The kitchen is considered the heart of the home, but recent discoveries have raised concerns about whether this beloved space might also pose hidden health risks. Gas stoves, present in 38% of U.S. homes, generate multiple pollutants including nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), a known respiratory irritant.¹ Studies have identified a correlation between NO₂ levels and respiratory conditions, with children being particularly vulnerable.² The association between domestic NO₂ exposure from gas stoves and conditions such as asthma has led to increased scrutiny of indoor air quality.

Studies have demonstrated that households using gas stoves have higher indoor NO₂ levels, with levels that far exceed the EPA national ambient air quality standards.³ While the predominance of studies have looked at a correlation with pediatric pulmonary processes, there is also evidence of increased lung function loss in patients who smoke and have COPD.⁴

Switching from gas to electric stoves is one proposed solution to mitigate exposure to NO₂. Evidence suggests that electric stoves significantly reduce indoor NO₂ levels, lowering the risk of respiratory illnesses.

Another proposed solution has been to utilize hoods; however, capture efficiency is variable and some recycle the air and return it indoors.⁵ While existing data indicates a connection between gas stove use and respiratory health risks, conclusive evidence examining the magnitude and mechanisms linking these factors to chronic lung diseases is still needed. Comprehensive studies will help determine whether the kitchen staple—a gas stove—is indeed a friend or a foe to our respiratory health.

References

1. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Appliances in U.S. homes, by household income, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%203.5.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2024.

2. Belanger K, Holford TR, Gent JF, Hill ME, Kezik JM, Leaderer BP. Household levels of nitrogen dioxide and pediatric asthma severity. Epidemiology. 2013;24(2):320-330.

3. Singer BC, Pass RZ, Delp WW, Lorenzetti DM, Maddalena RL. Pollutant concentrations and emission rates from natural gas cooking burners without and with range hood exhaust in nine California homes. Building and Environment. 2017;122:215-229.

4. Hansel NN, Woo H, Koehler K, et al. Indoor pollution and lung function decline in current and former smokers: SPIROMICS AIR. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2023;208(10):1042-1051.

5. Nassikas NJ, McCormack MC, Ewart G, et al. Indoor air sources of outdoor air pollution: health consequences, policy, and recommendations: an Official American Thoracic Society Workshop report. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2024;21(3), 365-376.

Critical Care Network

Sepsis/Shock Section

Early recognition is the linchpin of sepsis management, as mortality from sepsis increases by 4% to 9% for every hour that diagnosis and treatment are delayed.^1,2 Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly featured in discussions and publications about sepsis care. Already ML models are embedded in electronic medical records (EMR), driving best-practice advisories that are presented to users.³ Epic, the EMR that serves over half of patients in the US, offers its own proprietary cognitive computing model for early detection.

CHEST

CHEST

References

1. Sepsis Alliance. (2024, June 19). Septic shock. 2024. https://www.sepsis.org/sepsisand/septic-shock/. Accessed September 10, 2024.

2. Djikic M, Milenkovic M, Stojadinovic M, et al. The six scoring systems’ prognostic value in predicting 24-hour mortality in septic patients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2024;28(12):3849-3859.

3. Kamran F, Tjandra D, Heiler A, et al. Evaluation of sepsis prediction models before onset of treatment. NEJM AI. 2024.

4. Lilly CM, Kirk D, Pessach IM, et al. Application of machine learning models to biomedical and information system signals from critically ill adults. CHEST. 2024;165(5):1139-1148.
 

Critical Care Network

Sepsis/Shock Section

Early recognition is the linchpin of sepsis management, as mortality from sepsis increases by 4% to 9% for every hour that diagnosis and treatment are delayed.^1,2 Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly featured in discussions and publications about sepsis care. Already ML models are embedded in electronic medical records (EMR), driving best-practice advisories that are presented to users.³ Epic, the EMR that serves over half of patients in the US, offers its own proprietary cognitive computing model for early detection.

CHEST

CHEST

References

1. Sepsis Alliance. (2024, June 19). Septic shock. 2024. https://www.sepsis.org/sepsisand/septic-shock/. Accessed September 10, 2024.

2. Djikic M, Milenkovic M, Stojadinovic M, et al. The six scoring systems’ prognostic value in predicting 24-hour mortality in septic patients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2024;28(12):3849-3859.

3. Kamran F, Tjandra D, Heiler A, et al. Evaluation of sepsis prediction models before onset of treatment. NEJM AI. 2024.

4. Lilly CM, Kirk D, Pessach IM, et al. Application of machine learning models to biomedical and information system signals from critically ill adults. CHEST. 2024;165(5):1139-1148.
 

Critical Care Network

Sepsis/Shock Section

Early recognition is the linchpin of sepsis management, as mortality from sepsis increases by 4% to 9% for every hour that diagnosis and treatment are delayed.^1,2 Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly featured in discussions and publications about sepsis care. Already ML models are embedded in electronic medical records (EMR), driving best-practice advisories that are presented to users.³ Epic, the EMR that serves over half of patients in the US, offers its own proprietary cognitive computing model for early detection.

CHEST

CHEST

References

1. Sepsis Alliance. (2024, June 19). Septic shock. 2024. https://www.sepsis.org/sepsisand/septic-shock/. Accessed September 10, 2024.

2. Djikic M, Milenkovic M, Stojadinovic M, et al. The six scoring systems’ prognostic value in predicting 24-hour mortality in septic patients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2024;28(12):3849-3859.

3. Kamran F, Tjandra D, Heiler A, et al. Evaluation of sepsis prediction models before onset of treatment. NEJM AI. 2024.

4. Lilly CM, Kirk D, Pessach IM, et al. Application of machine learning models to biomedical and information system signals from critically ill adults. CHEST. 2024;165(5):1139-1148.
 

Thoracic Oncology and Chest Procedures Network

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

An assessment using bedside thoracic ultrasound (TUS) improves diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic management in critically ill patients without undue risk. With changes in diagnosis occurring in 23% of cases and alterations in management in 39% of critically ill patients, TUS can improve length of stay, reduce complications, minimize delays in therapy, and lower hospitalization costs.¹ Compared with its cardiac counterpart, attaining proficiency in lung ultrasound (LUS) is easier.² Intensivists are at risk of forgoing mastering LUS in favor of developing more difficult skills. Proficiency in LUS is essential, as more than half of TUS evaluations are for respiratory complaints and most findings are pulmonary.¹

CHEST

A quick bedside assessment outperforms chest radiographs and available clinical scores in distinguishing pneumonia from atelectasis. The presence of dynamic air bronchograms within the consolidation is 45% sensitive and 99% specific for pneumonia over atelectasis.³ When air bronchograms are static, the presence of flow on color Doppler is 98% sensitive and 68% specific for pneumonia over atelectasis. Similarly, a closer look at the pleural lining shows more than the presence or absence of lung sliding. The presence of fragmentation, irregularity, or thickening of pleural lines provides 100% specificity in discriminating a noncardiogenic interstitial pathology from cardiogenic pulmonary edema.⁴

CHEST

References

1. Heldeweg M, Lopez Matta JE, Pisani L, Slot S. The impact of thoracic ultrasound on clinical management of critically ill patients (UltraMan): an international prospective observational study. Crit Care Med. 2023;51:357-364.

2. Kraaijenbrink BVC, Mousa A, Bos LD, et al. Defining basic (lung) ultrasound skills: not so basic after all? Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:628–629.

3. Haaksma M, Smit J, Heldeweg M, Nooitgedacht J, de Grooth H. Extended lung ultrasound to differentiate between pneumonia and atelectasis in critically ill patients: a diagnostic accuracy study. Crit Care Med. 2022;50:750-759.

4. Heldeweg M, Smit M, Kramer-Elliott S, et al. Lung ultrasound signs to diagnose and discriminate interstitial syndromes in ICU patients: a diagnostic accuracy study in two cohorts. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(11):1607-1617.
 

Thoracic Oncology and Chest Procedures Network

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

An assessment using bedside thoracic ultrasound (TUS) improves diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic management in critically ill patients without undue risk. With changes in diagnosis occurring in 23% of cases and alterations in management in 39% of critically ill patients, TUS can improve length of stay, reduce complications, minimize delays in therapy, and lower hospitalization costs.¹ Compared with its cardiac counterpart, attaining proficiency in lung ultrasound (LUS) is easier.² Intensivists are at risk of forgoing mastering LUS in favor of developing more difficult skills. Proficiency in LUS is essential, as more than half of TUS evaluations are for respiratory complaints and most findings are pulmonary.¹

CHEST

A quick bedside assessment outperforms chest radiographs and available clinical scores in distinguishing pneumonia from atelectasis. The presence of dynamic air bronchograms within the consolidation is 45% sensitive and 99% specific for pneumonia over atelectasis.³ When air bronchograms are static, the presence of flow on color Doppler is 98% sensitive and 68% specific for pneumonia over atelectasis. Similarly, a closer look at the pleural lining shows more than the presence or absence of lung sliding. The presence of fragmentation, irregularity, or thickening of pleural lines provides 100% specificity in discriminating a noncardiogenic interstitial pathology from cardiogenic pulmonary edema.⁴

CHEST

References

1. Heldeweg M, Lopez Matta JE, Pisani L, Slot S. The impact of thoracic ultrasound on clinical management of critically ill patients (UltraMan): an international prospective observational study. Crit Care Med. 2023;51:357-364.

2. Kraaijenbrink BVC, Mousa A, Bos LD, et al. Defining basic (lung) ultrasound skills: not so basic after all? Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:628–629.

3. Haaksma M, Smit J, Heldeweg M, Nooitgedacht J, de Grooth H. Extended lung ultrasound to differentiate between pneumonia and atelectasis in critically ill patients: a diagnostic accuracy study. Crit Care Med. 2022;50:750-759.

4. Heldeweg M, Smit M, Kramer-Elliott S, et al. Lung ultrasound signs to diagnose and discriminate interstitial syndromes in ICU patients: a diagnostic accuracy study in two cohorts. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(11):1607-1617.
 

Thoracic Oncology and Chest Procedures Network

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

An assessment using bedside thoracic ultrasound (TUS) improves diagnostic evaluation and therapeutic management in critically ill patients without undue risk. With changes in diagnosis occurring in 23% of cases and alterations in management in 39% of critically ill patients, TUS can improve length of stay, reduce complications, minimize delays in therapy, and lower hospitalization costs.¹ Compared with its cardiac counterpart, attaining proficiency in lung ultrasound (LUS) is easier.² Intensivists are at risk of forgoing mastering LUS in favor of developing more difficult skills. Proficiency in LUS is essential, as more than half of TUS evaluations are for respiratory complaints and most findings are pulmonary.¹

CHEST

A quick bedside assessment outperforms chest radiographs and available clinical scores in distinguishing pneumonia from atelectasis. The presence of dynamic air bronchograms within the consolidation is 45% sensitive and 99% specific for pneumonia over atelectasis.³ When air bronchograms are static, the presence of flow on color Doppler is 98% sensitive and 68% specific for pneumonia over atelectasis. Similarly, a closer look at the pleural lining shows more than the presence or absence of lung sliding. The presence of fragmentation, irregularity, or thickening of pleural lines provides 100% specificity in discriminating a noncardiogenic interstitial pathology from cardiogenic pulmonary edema.⁴

CHEST

References

1. Heldeweg M, Lopez Matta JE, Pisani L, Slot S. The impact of thoracic ultrasound on clinical management of critically ill patients (UltraMan): an international prospective observational study. Crit Care Med. 2023;51:357-364.

2. Kraaijenbrink BVC, Mousa A, Bos LD, et al. Defining basic (lung) ultrasound skills: not so basic after all? Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:628–629.

3. Haaksma M, Smit J, Heldeweg M, Nooitgedacht J, de Grooth H. Extended lung ultrasound to differentiate between pneumonia and atelectasis in critically ill patients: a diagnostic accuracy study. Crit Care Med. 2022;50:750-759.

4. Heldeweg M, Smit M, Kramer-Elliott S, et al. Lung ultrasound signs to diagnose and discriminate interstitial syndromes in ICU patients: a diagnostic accuracy study in two cohorts. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(11):1607-1617.
 

Use of a modified sleep apnea index can identify cardiovascular risk factors in adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to results from a new study presented at the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 2024 Annual Meeting.

The modified sleep apnea severity index (mSASI) combines patient anatomy, weight, sleep study metrics, and symptoms, to provide a more nuanced measure of OSA than the standard apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), said Jennifer A. Goldfarb, MHS, a medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who presented the findings.

OSA has an association with many negative cardiovascular comorbidities; however, “the AHI provides only a single metric and does not provide a holistic assessment of the individual patient’s disease severity,” said senior author Colin T. Huntley, MD, also of Thomas Jefferson University. 

“OSA is very complex, and having a robust system to assess the disease may be a better predictor of overall severity,” he told this news organization. 

Previous research has shown a correlation between mSASI and mean arterial pressure and serum C-reactive protein in OSA patients, but the connection with cardiovascular risk factors has not been well studied, Ms. Goldfarb noted. 

In the retrospective cohort study, Ms. Goldfarb and colleagues looked at mSASI scores from 260 CPAP-intolerant patients with OSA who underwent upper airway stimulation, maxillomandibular advancement, or expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty at a single sleep surgery clinic between 2014 and 2021. The mSASI uses a score of 1-3, with 3 as the highest level of OSA severity.

Cardiovascular risk factors were assessed at the patient’s initial evaluation by the sleep surgery team. They included coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and cerebrovascular accident. 

A total of 142 patients (55%) had an mSASI of 1; 91 (35%) had an mSASI of 2; and 27 (10%) had an mSASI of 3. At least one cardiovascular risk factor was present in 58%, 68%, and 63% of these groups, respectively (P = .3). 

Stratifying participants by mSASI scores, the researchers found that patients with an mSASI of 2 or 3 were significantly more likely than those with an mSASI of 1 to have more cardiovascular risk factors on initial presentation, and were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with hypertension (P = .02 for both). 

Using the AHI, however, patients with moderate to severe OSA (AHI > 15) had a similar number of cardiovascular risk factors as those with mild OSA (P > .05). 

“A higher mSASI score, which represents worse disease, was associated with a higher Framingham risk score, which supported our hypothesis; however, the AHI was not found to be associated with an increased Framingham score,” Dr. Huntley told this news organization.
 

Takeaways and Next Steps

These results suggest that the AHI, while a good metric, might not be the best tool for assessment of overall disease severity, given the complexity of OSA, the impact of the disease on patient quality of life, and the risk for downstream cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Huntley. 

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. 

Population-level data are needed to identify variables that may be meaningful to create a future tool that provides the best picture of the individual patient’s disease, he added. Additional prospective data are also needed to assess the impact of the scoring system on long-term treatment outcomes. 

“The current study is especially interesting as we are just beginning to understand the factors that predict cardiovascular risk for patients with obstructive sleep apnea,” Megan Durr, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“For a long time, we primarily looked at the AHI and/or oxygen levels during sleep as risk factors, and we haven’t looked as much at other factors.” said Dr. Durr, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

The current findings provide a more comprehensive look at cardiovascular risk; the inclusion of patient anatomy and symptoms add to the knowledge of this topic, and will lead to further work in this area, she added. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Huntley disclosed receiving research support from Nyxoah and Inspire, and serving as a consultant for Nyxoah, Inspire, and Avivomed. 

Dr. Durr had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of a modified sleep apnea index can identify cardiovascular risk factors in adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to results from a new study presented at the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 2024 Annual Meeting.

The modified sleep apnea severity index (mSASI) combines patient anatomy, weight, sleep study metrics, and symptoms, to provide a more nuanced measure of OSA than the standard apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), said Jennifer A. Goldfarb, MHS, a medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who presented the findings.

OSA has an association with many negative cardiovascular comorbidities; however, “the AHI provides only a single metric and does not provide a holistic assessment of the individual patient’s disease severity,” said senior author Colin T. Huntley, MD, also of Thomas Jefferson University. 

“OSA is very complex, and having a robust system to assess the disease may be a better predictor of overall severity,” he told this news organization. 

Previous research has shown a correlation between mSASI and mean arterial pressure and serum C-reactive protein in OSA patients, but the connection with cardiovascular risk factors has not been well studied, Ms. Goldfarb noted. 

In the retrospective cohort study, Ms. Goldfarb and colleagues looked at mSASI scores from 260 CPAP-intolerant patients with OSA who underwent upper airway stimulation, maxillomandibular advancement, or expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty at a single sleep surgery clinic between 2014 and 2021. The mSASI uses a score of 1-3, with 3 as the highest level of OSA severity.

Cardiovascular risk factors were assessed at the patient’s initial evaluation by the sleep surgery team. They included coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and cerebrovascular accident. 

A total of 142 patients (55%) had an mSASI of 1; 91 (35%) had an mSASI of 2; and 27 (10%) had an mSASI of 3. At least one cardiovascular risk factor was present in 58%, 68%, and 63% of these groups, respectively (P = .3). 

Stratifying participants by mSASI scores, the researchers found that patients with an mSASI of 2 or 3 were significantly more likely than those with an mSASI of 1 to have more cardiovascular risk factors on initial presentation, and were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with hypertension (P = .02 for both). 

Using the AHI, however, patients with moderate to severe OSA (AHI > 15) had a similar number of cardiovascular risk factors as those with mild OSA (P > .05). 

“A higher mSASI score, which represents worse disease, was associated with a higher Framingham risk score, which supported our hypothesis; however, the AHI was not found to be associated with an increased Framingham score,” Dr. Huntley told this news organization.
 

Takeaways and Next Steps

These results suggest that the AHI, while a good metric, might not be the best tool for assessment of overall disease severity, given the complexity of OSA, the impact of the disease on patient quality of life, and the risk for downstream cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Huntley. 

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. 

Population-level data are needed to identify variables that may be meaningful to create a future tool that provides the best picture of the individual patient’s disease, he added. Additional prospective data are also needed to assess the impact of the scoring system on long-term treatment outcomes. 

“The current study is especially interesting as we are just beginning to understand the factors that predict cardiovascular risk for patients with obstructive sleep apnea,” Megan Durr, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“For a long time, we primarily looked at the AHI and/or oxygen levels during sleep as risk factors, and we haven’t looked as much at other factors.” said Dr. Durr, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

The current findings provide a more comprehensive look at cardiovascular risk; the inclusion of patient anatomy and symptoms add to the knowledge of this topic, and will lead to further work in this area, she added. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Huntley disclosed receiving research support from Nyxoah and Inspire, and serving as a consultant for Nyxoah, Inspire, and Avivomed. 

Dr. Durr had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of a modified sleep apnea index can identify cardiovascular risk factors in adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to results from a new study presented at the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 2024 Annual Meeting.

The modified sleep apnea severity index (mSASI) combines patient anatomy, weight, sleep study metrics, and symptoms, to provide a more nuanced measure of OSA than the standard apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), said Jennifer A. Goldfarb, MHS, a medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who presented the findings.

OSA has an association with many negative cardiovascular comorbidities; however, “the AHI provides only a single metric and does not provide a holistic assessment of the individual patient’s disease severity,” said senior author Colin T. Huntley, MD, also of Thomas Jefferson University. 

“OSA is very complex, and having a robust system to assess the disease may be a better predictor of overall severity,” he told this news organization. 

Previous research has shown a correlation between mSASI and mean arterial pressure and serum C-reactive protein in OSA patients, but the connection with cardiovascular risk factors has not been well studied, Ms. Goldfarb noted. 

In the retrospective cohort study, Ms. Goldfarb and colleagues looked at mSASI scores from 260 CPAP-intolerant patients with OSA who underwent upper airway stimulation, maxillomandibular advancement, or expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty at a single sleep surgery clinic between 2014 and 2021. The mSASI uses a score of 1-3, with 3 as the highest level of OSA severity.

Cardiovascular risk factors were assessed at the patient’s initial evaluation by the sleep surgery team. They included coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and cerebrovascular accident. 

A total of 142 patients (55%) had an mSASI of 1; 91 (35%) had an mSASI of 2; and 27 (10%) had an mSASI of 3. At least one cardiovascular risk factor was present in 58%, 68%, and 63% of these groups, respectively (P = .3). 

Stratifying participants by mSASI scores, the researchers found that patients with an mSASI of 2 or 3 were significantly more likely than those with an mSASI of 1 to have more cardiovascular risk factors on initial presentation, and were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with hypertension (P = .02 for both). 

Using the AHI, however, patients with moderate to severe OSA (AHI > 15) had a similar number of cardiovascular risk factors as those with mild OSA (P > .05). 

“A higher mSASI score, which represents worse disease, was associated with a higher Framingham risk score, which supported our hypothesis; however, the AHI was not found to be associated with an increased Framingham score,” Dr. Huntley told this news organization.
 

Takeaways and Next Steps

These results suggest that the AHI, while a good metric, might not be the best tool for assessment of overall disease severity, given the complexity of OSA, the impact of the disease on patient quality of life, and the risk for downstream cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Huntley. 

The findings were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. 

Population-level data are needed to identify variables that may be meaningful to create a future tool that provides the best picture of the individual patient’s disease, he added. Additional prospective data are also needed to assess the impact of the scoring system on long-term treatment outcomes. 

“The current study is especially interesting as we are just beginning to understand the factors that predict cardiovascular risk for patients with obstructive sleep apnea,” Megan Durr, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“For a long time, we primarily looked at the AHI and/or oxygen levels during sleep as risk factors, and we haven’t looked as much at other factors.” said Dr. Durr, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

The current findings provide a more comprehensive look at cardiovascular risk; the inclusion of patient anatomy and symptoms add to the knowledge of this topic, and will lead to further work in this area, she added. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Huntley disclosed receiving research support from Nyxoah and Inspire, and serving as a consultant for Nyxoah, Inspire, and Avivomed. 

Dr. Durr had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

TOPLINE:

Older age, male sex, and seropositivity are linked to a higher risk for rheumatoid arthritis–interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern, while only seropositivity is associated with RA-ILD with a nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern (NSIP).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study using data from two cohorts in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare system to examine the risk factors associated with different subtypes of RA-ILD.
• They identified 208 patients with RA-ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 50.7 years; 67.3% women) and 547 control participants with RA but no ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 49.1 years; 78.1% women), who had high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging data available.
• RA-ILD subtypes such as RA-UIP, RA-NSIP, organizing pneumonia, and others were determined with HRCT scans.
• The associations between demographics, lifestyle, and serologic factors and RA-ILD subtypes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The RA-UIP subtype, the one with worst prognosis, was associated with older age during the time of RA diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.33-3.48), and seropositivity (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.24-3.48).
• On the other hand, the RA-NSIP subtype was significantly associated only with seropositivity (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.36-7.56).
• Nonfibrotic ILDs were significantly associated with positive smoking status (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.52-5.21) and seropositivity (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.19-3.67).
• The combination of male sex, seropositivity, and positive smoking status was associated with a nearly sevenfold increased risk for RA-UIP (OR, 6.89; 95% CI, 2.41-19.69), compared with having no RA-ILD risk factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that RA-ILD subtypes may have distinct risk factor profiles and emphasize the importance of further efforts to understand RA-ILD disease heterogeneity to inform screening and prognostication strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gregory C. McDermott, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and was published online on September 11, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on HRCT imaging, which may have introduced selection bias within the control groups. RA disease activity measures were not available for the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA cohort, which limited the analysis of the influence of disease activity on the risk for RA-ILD. Both cohorts predominantly involved White patients, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Award, a VERITY Pilot & Feasibility Research Award, the Société Française de Rhumatologie, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and other sources. The authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, and honoraria from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older age, male sex, and seropositivity are linked to a higher risk for rheumatoid arthritis–interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern, while only seropositivity is associated with RA-ILD with a nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern (NSIP).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study using data from two cohorts in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare system to examine the risk factors associated with different subtypes of RA-ILD.
• They identified 208 patients with RA-ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 50.7 years; 67.3% women) and 547 control participants with RA but no ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 49.1 years; 78.1% women), who had high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging data available.
• RA-ILD subtypes such as RA-UIP, RA-NSIP, organizing pneumonia, and others were determined with HRCT scans.
• The associations between demographics, lifestyle, and serologic factors and RA-ILD subtypes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The RA-UIP subtype, the one with worst prognosis, was associated with older age during the time of RA diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.33-3.48), and seropositivity (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.24-3.48).
• On the other hand, the RA-NSIP subtype was significantly associated only with seropositivity (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.36-7.56).
• Nonfibrotic ILDs were significantly associated with positive smoking status (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.52-5.21) and seropositivity (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.19-3.67).
• The combination of male sex, seropositivity, and positive smoking status was associated with a nearly sevenfold increased risk for RA-UIP (OR, 6.89; 95% CI, 2.41-19.69), compared with having no RA-ILD risk factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that RA-ILD subtypes may have distinct risk factor profiles and emphasize the importance of further efforts to understand RA-ILD disease heterogeneity to inform screening and prognostication strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gregory C. McDermott, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and was published online on September 11, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on HRCT imaging, which may have introduced selection bias within the control groups. RA disease activity measures were not available for the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA cohort, which limited the analysis of the influence of disease activity on the risk for RA-ILD. Both cohorts predominantly involved White patients, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Award, a VERITY Pilot & Feasibility Research Award, the Société Française de Rhumatologie, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and other sources. The authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, and honoraria from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older age, male sex, and seropositivity are linked to a higher risk for rheumatoid arthritis–interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) with a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern, while only seropositivity is associated with RA-ILD with a nonspecific interstitial pneumonia pattern (NSIP).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study using data from two cohorts in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare system to examine the risk factors associated with different subtypes of RA-ILD.
• They identified 208 patients with RA-ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 50.7 years; 67.3% women) and 547 control participants with RA but no ILD (mean age at RA diagnosis, 49.1 years; 78.1% women), who had high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) imaging data available.
• RA-ILD subtypes such as RA-UIP, RA-NSIP, organizing pneumonia, and others were determined with HRCT scans.
• The associations between demographics, lifestyle, and serologic factors and RA-ILD subtypes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The RA-UIP subtype, the one with worst prognosis, was associated with older age during the time of RA diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per year; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05), male sex (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.33-3.48), and seropositivity (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.24-3.48).
• On the other hand, the RA-NSIP subtype was significantly associated only with seropositivity (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.36-7.56).
• Nonfibrotic ILDs were significantly associated with positive smoking status (OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.52-5.21) and seropositivity (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.19-3.67).
• The combination of male sex, seropositivity, and positive smoking status was associated with a nearly sevenfold increased risk for RA-UIP (OR, 6.89; 95% CI, 2.41-19.69), compared with having no RA-ILD risk factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that RA-ILD subtypes may have distinct risk factor profiles and emphasize the importance of further efforts to understand RA-ILD disease heterogeneity to inform screening and prognostication strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Gregory C. McDermott, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and was published online on September 11, 2024, in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on HRCT imaging, which may have introduced selection bias within the control groups. RA disease activity measures were not available for the Mass General Brigham Biobank RA cohort, which limited the analysis of the influence of disease activity on the risk for RA-ILD. Both cohorts predominantly involved White patients, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors were supported by the Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Award, a VERITY Pilot & Feasibility Research Award, the Société Française de Rhumatologie, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and other sources. The authors declared receiving grant support, consulting fees, and honoraria from various organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have a low rate of acute toxicities and 90-day mortality, according to a recent study evaluating real-world patient outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
• In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
• Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
• Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
• Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
• Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
• Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
• Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have a low rate of acute toxicities and 90-day mortality, according to a recent study evaluating real-world patient outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
• In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
• Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
• Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
• Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
• Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
• Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
• Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with stage I non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have a low rate of acute toxicities and 90-day mortality, according to a recent study evaluating real-world patient outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• SBRT is generally considered a safe treatment option in patients with stage I NSCLC who have medically inoperable tumors or who refuse surgery. Although rare, clinically relevant acute toxicities or early mortality can occur.
• In the current real-world analysis, researchers explored toxicity and 90-day mortality outcomes in patients who received SBRT to develop a better understanding of how often they happen and whether certain patients are at higher risk.
• Researchers analyzed data from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database, which included 7279 patients with stage I NSCLC who received SBRT between January 2017 and December 2021.
• Participants had a mean age of 72.5 years; 21.6% were older than 80 years. Over half were men (50.7%), most (73.3%) had WHO scores of 0-1, and about two thirds (64.6%) had cT1a-b tumors, mostly in the upper lobes (65.2%).
• Prediction models for acute toxicity and 90-day mortality were developed and internally validated using logistic regression analysis. Acute toxicity was defined as grade 2 or higher radiation pneumonitis or grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicity within 90 days after SBRT. The 90-day mortality was defined as mortality from any cause within 90 days after SBRT.

TAKEAWAY:

• Acute toxicity was observed in 3.8% patients, with more common types including dyspnea (1.8%), radiation pneumonitis (1.2%), fatigue (0.3%), and dysphagia (0.2%).
• Predictors for acute toxicity included WHO performance status of 2 or higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.89; P = .003), middle or lower lobe tumor location (aOR, 1.38), cT1c-cT2a stage (aOR, 1.66), as well as lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second and higher mean lung dose.
• Overall, 90-day mortality was observed in 1.7% patients, with predictors including male sex, WHO performance status of 2 or higher (aOR, 6.11; P < .001), and acute toxicity (aOR, 8.89; P < .001).
• Advanced age was not associated with a higher risk for acute toxicity or 90-day mortality.

IN PRACTICE:

“This real-world study confirms that clinically relevant acute toxicity after lung SBRT for stage I NSCLC is rare,” and the 90-day mortality rate is low, the authors wrote. “Although these findings could inform clinical practice and enable individualized risk estimations, these parameters (and the others in the presented nomograms) should not serve as contraindication for SBRT as the benefits in terms of local control and survival outweigh the risks in most patients.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Peter S.N. van Rossum, MD, PhD, Amsterdam UMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, was published online in Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with ultracentral tumor locations were excluded, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Radiotherapy database does not register whether a patient has interstitial lung disease or whether the treated tumor is at a central location, which carry increased risks for toxicity. The findings may not be applicable to patients receiving combined immunotherapy and SBRT, as this combination was not included in the current analysis. External validation of the prediction models is needed for application outside the Netherlands.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.