CHEST Physician

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

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:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

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:

An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
• Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
• A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
• The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
• Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.

DISCLOSURES:

Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.

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.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs (Tecentriq Hybreza, Genentech) as a subcutaneous injection in adults, covering all approved indications of the intravenous (IV) formulation.

Approved indications include non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, and alveolar soft part sarcoma. Specific indications are available with the full prescribing information at Drugs@FDA.

This is the first programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor to gain approval for subcutaneous administration.

“This approval represents a significant option to improve the patient experience,” Ann Fish-Steagall, RN, Senior Vice President of Patient Services at the LUNGevity Foundation stated in a Genentech press release.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs was evaluated in the open-label, randomized IMscin001 trial of 371 adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who were not previously exposed to cancer immunotherapy and who had disease progression following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous or IV administration until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Atezolizumab exposure, the primary outcome measure of the study, met the lower limit of geometric mean ratio above the prespecified threshold of 0.8 (cycle 1C trough, 1.05; area under the curve for days 0-21, 0.87).

No notable differences were observed in overall response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two formulations, according to the FDA approval notice.

The confirmed overall response rate was 9% in the subcutaneous arm and 8% intravenous arm.

Adverse events of any grade occurring in at least 10% of patients were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cough, dyspnea, and decreased appetite.

The recommended dose for subcutaneous injection is one 15 mL injection, which contains 1875 mg of atezolizumab and 30,000 units of hyaluronidase.

Injections should be administered in the thigh over approximately 7 minutes every 3 weeks. By contrast, IV administration generally takes 30-60 minutes.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs (Tecentriq Hybreza, Genentech) as a subcutaneous injection in adults, covering all approved indications of the intravenous (IV) formulation.

Approved indications include non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, and alveolar soft part sarcoma. Specific indications are available with the full prescribing information at Drugs@FDA.

This is the first programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor to gain approval for subcutaneous administration.

“This approval represents a significant option to improve the patient experience,” Ann Fish-Steagall, RN, Senior Vice President of Patient Services at the LUNGevity Foundation stated in a Genentech press release.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs was evaluated in the open-label, randomized IMscin001 trial of 371 adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who were not previously exposed to cancer immunotherapy and who had disease progression following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous or IV administration until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Atezolizumab exposure, the primary outcome measure of the study, met the lower limit of geometric mean ratio above the prespecified threshold of 0.8 (cycle 1C trough, 1.05; area under the curve for days 0-21, 0.87).

No notable differences were observed in overall response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two formulations, according to the FDA approval notice.

The confirmed overall response rate was 9% in the subcutaneous arm and 8% intravenous arm.

Adverse events of any grade occurring in at least 10% of patients were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cough, dyspnea, and decreased appetite.

The recommended dose for subcutaneous injection is one 15 mL injection, which contains 1875 mg of atezolizumab and 30,000 units of hyaluronidase.

Injections should be administered in the thigh over approximately 7 minutes every 3 weeks. By contrast, IV administration generally takes 30-60 minutes.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs (Tecentriq Hybreza, Genentech) as a subcutaneous injection in adults, covering all approved indications of the intravenous (IV) formulation.

Approved indications include non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, and alveolar soft part sarcoma. Specific indications are available with the full prescribing information at Drugs@FDA.

This is the first programmed death–ligand 1 inhibitor to gain approval for subcutaneous administration.

“This approval represents a significant option to improve the patient experience,” Ann Fish-Steagall, RN, Senior Vice President of Patient Services at the LUNGevity Foundation stated in a Genentech press release.

Subcutaneous atezolizumab and hyaluronidase-tqjs was evaluated in the open-label, randomized IMscin001 trial of 371 adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who were not previously exposed to cancer immunotherapy and who had disease progression following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous or IV administration until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Atezolizumab exposure, the primary outcome measure of the study, met the lower limit of geometric mean ratio above the prespecified threshold of 0.8 (cycle 1C trough, 1.05; area under the curve for days 0-21, 0.87).

No notable differences were observed in overall response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival between the two formulations, according to the FDA approval notice.

The confirmed overall response rate was 9% in the subcutaneous arm and 8% intravenous arm.

Adverse events of any grade occurring in at least 10% of patients were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cough, dyspnea, and decreased appetite.

The recommended dose for subcutaneous injection is one 15 mL injection, which contains 1875 mg of atezolizumab and 30,000 units of hyaluronidase.

Injections should be administered in the thigh over approximately 7 minutes every 3 weeks. By contrast, IV administration generally takes 30-60 minutes.

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

SAN DIEGO — Combination therapy with osimertinib and savolitinib could become a novel first-line treatment option for patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results of the phase 2 FLOWERS study.

Compared with EGFR inhibitor osimertinib alone, the combination demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in the objective response rate — the study’s primary endpoint — with a positive trend in progression-free survival and a manageable safety profile.

About 30% patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC fail to respond well to EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), explained Jin-Ji Yang, MD, with Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China, who reported the study results at the annual meeting of the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Data suggested that de novo MET amplification occurs in up to 5% patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, and MET overexpression occurs in up to 15% these patients.

Coexistence of EGFR mutation and MET amplification/overexpression reduces sensitivity to EGFR-TKI therapy “and is likely the mechanism for mediating primary resistance to first-line EGFR-TKI monotherapy,” Dr. Yang explained in her presentation.

Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-TKI recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. Savolitinib is a highly selective MET-TKI which has demonstrated antitumor activity in various cancers with MET alterations.

The FLOWERS study is the first to test whether combining the two agents could improve efficacy and overcome MET-driven primary resistance in these patients.

The phase 2 study enrolled 44 treatment-naive patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutant, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; 23 were randomly allocated to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) alone and 21 to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) plus savolitinib (300 mg twice daily).

At a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the objective response rate was 60.9% with osimertinib monotherapy vs 90.5% with combination therapy. The disease control rate was also better with the combination therapy than with monotherapy (95.2% vs 87%).

Median duration of response (not yet mature) was 8.4 months with monotherapy vs 18.6 months with combination therapy.

Preliminary progression-free survival data also showed a trend in favor of combination therapy over monotherapy (a median of 19.3 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.59).

Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, and there were no fatal adverse events.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common with combination therapy (57.1% vs 8.7%). The most common events with monotherapy were diarrhea (56.5%), rash (52.2%), and pruritus (43.5%) and with dual therapy were rash (52.4%), thrombocytopenia (52.4%), and peripheral edema (42.9%).

The results showed that the combination therapy has the potential to become a first-line treatment option for patients who do not respond well to EGFR-TKIs alone, Dr. Yang said in a press release.

Discussant for the study Paul Paik, MD, thoracic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said this study “adds to data suggesting high MET expression might be a poor prognostic or predictive marker, the outcomes of which are improved with MET inhibition.”

He cautioned, however, that there appears to be “quality of life, side-effect trade-offs with dual MET plus EGFR TKI upfront.”

Dr. Paik said he looks forward to results from FLOWERS on serial circulating tumor DNA and formal androgen receptor testing, which “might aid in further assessing clonality and characterizing MET as a co-driver in this setting.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca China. Dr. Yang had no disclosures. Dr. Paik disclosed relationships with EMD Serono, Bicara, Novartis, and Summit.

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

SAN DIEGO — Combination therapy with osimertinib and savolitinib could become a novel first-line treatment option for patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results of the phase 2 FLOWERS study.

Compared with EGFR inhibitor osimertinib alone, the combination demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in the objective response rate — the study’s primary endpoint — with a positive trend in progression-free survival and a manageable safety profile.

About 30% patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC fail to respond well to EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), explained Jin-Ji Yang, MD, with Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China, who reported the study results at the annual meeting of the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Data suggested that de novo MET amplification occurs in up to 5% patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, and MET overexpression occurs in up to 15% these patients.

Coexistence of EGFR mutation and MET amplification/overexpression reduces sensitivity to EGFR-TKI therapy “and is likely the mechanism for mediating primary resistance to first-line EGFR-TKI monotherapy,” Dr. Yang explained in her presentation.

Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-TKI recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. Savolitinib is a highly selective MET-TKI which has demonstrated antitumor activity in various cancers with MET alterations.

The FLOWERS study is the first to test whether combining the two agents could improve efficacy and overcome MET-driven primary resistance in these patients.

The phase 2 study enrolled 44 treatment-naive patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutant, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; 23 were randomly allocated to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) alone and 21 to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) plus savolitinib (300 mg twice daily).

At a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the objective response rate was 60.9% with osimertinib monotherapy vs 90.5% with combination therapy. The disease control rate was also better with the combination therapy than with monotherapy (95.2% vs 87%).

Median duration of response (not yet mature) was 8.4 months with monotherapy vs 18.6 months with combination therapy.

Preliminary progression-free survival data also showed a trend in favor of combination therapy over monotherapy (a median of 19.3 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.59).

Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, and there were no fatal adverse events.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common with combination therapy (57.1% vs 8.7%). The most common events with monotherapy were diarrhea (56.5%), rash (52.2%), and pruritus (43.5%) and with dual therapy were rash (52.4%), thrombocytopenia (52.4%), and peripheral edema (42.9%).

The results showed that the combination therapy has the potential to become a first-line treatment option for patients who do not respond well to EGFR-TKIs alone, Dr. Yang said in a press release.

Discussant for the study Paul Paik, MD, thoracic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said this study “adds to data suggesting high MET expression might be a poor prognostic or predictive marker, the outcomes of which are improved with MET inhibition.”

He cautioned, however, that there appears to be “quality of life, side-effect trade-offs with dual MET plus EGFR TKI upfront.”

Dr. Paik said he looks forward to results from FLOWERS on serial circulating tumor DNA and formal androgen receptor testing, which “might aid in further assessing clonality and characterizing MET as a co-driver in this setting.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca China. Dr. Yang had no disclosures. Dr. Paik disclosed relationships with EMD Serono, Bicara, Novartis, and Summit.

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

SAN DIEGO — Combination therapy with osimertinib and savolitinib could become a novel first-line treatment option for patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results of the phase 2 FLOWERS study.

Compared with EGFR inhibitor osimertinib alone, the combination demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in the objective response rate — the study’s primary endpoint — with a positive trend in progression-free survival and a manageable safety profile.

About 30% patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC fail to respond well to EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), explained Jin-Ji Yang, MD, with Guangdong Lung Cancer Institute, Guangzhou, China, who reported the study results at the annual meeting of the World Conference on Lung Cancer.

Data suggested that de novo MET amplification occurs in up to 5% patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, and MET overexpression occurs in up to 15% these patients.

Coexistence of EGFR mutation and MET amplification/overexpression reduces sensitivity to EGFR-TKI therapy “and is likely the mechanism for mediating primary resistance to first-line EGFR-TKI monotherapy,” Dr. Yang explained in her presentation.

Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-TKI recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC. Savolitinib is a highly selective MET-TKI which has demonstrated antitumor activity in various cancers with MET alterations.

The FLOWERS study is the first to test whether combining the two agents could improve efficacy and overcome MET-driven primary resistance in these patients.

The phase 2 study enrolled 44 treatment-naive patients with de novo MET-aberrant, EGFR-mutant, stage IIIB-IV NSCLC; 23 were randomly allocated to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) alone and 21 to receive oral osimertinib (80 mg once daily) plus savolitinib (300 mg twice daily).

At a median follow-up of 8.2 months, the objective response rate was 60.9% with osimertinib monotherapy vs 90.5% with combination therapy. The disease control rate was also better with the combination therapy than with monotherapy (95.2% vs 87%).

Median duration of response (not yet mature) was 8.4 months with monotherapy vs 18.6 months with combination therapy.

Preliminary progression-free survival data also showed a trend in favor of combination therapy over monotherapy (a median of 19.3 vs 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.59).

Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, and there were no fatal adverse events.

Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were more common with combination therapy (57.1% vs 8.7%). The most common events with monotherapy were diarrhea (56.5%), rash (52.2%), and pruritus (43.5%) and with dual therapy were rash (52.4%), thrombocytopenia (52.4%), and peripheral edema (42.9%).

The results showed that the combination therapy has the potential to become a first-line treatment option for patients who do not respond well to EGFR-TKIs alone, Dr. Yang said in a press release.

Discussant for the study Paul Paik, MD, thoracic oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said this study “adds to data suggesting high MET expression might be a poor prognostic or predictive marker, the outcomes of which are improved with MET inhibition.”

He cautioned, however, that there appears to be “quality of life, side-effect trade-offs with dual MET plus EGFR TKI upfront.”

Dr. Paik said he looks forward to results from FLOWERS on serial circulating tumor DNA and formal androgen receptor testing, which “might aid in further assessing clonality and characterizing MET as a co-driver in this setting.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca China. Dr. Yang had no disclosures. Dr. Paik disclosed relationships with EMD Serono, Bicara, Novartis, and Summit.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

While she cared deeply about her work, Melissa Adams*, a family nurse practitioner (NP) in Madison, Alabama, was being frequently triple-booked, didn’t feel respected by her office manager, and started to worry about becoming burned out. When she sought help, “the administration was tone-deaf,” she said. “When I asked about what I could do to prevent burnout, they sent me an article about it. It was clear to me that asking for respite from triple-booking and asking to be respected by my office manager wasn’t being heard ... so I thought, ‘how do I fly under the radar and get by with what I can?’ ” That meant focusing on patient care and refusing to take on additional responsibilities, like training new hires or working with students.

“You’re overworked and underpaid, and you start giving less and less of yourself,” Ms. Adams said in an interview.

Quiet quitting, defined as performing only the assigned tasks of the job without making any extra effort or going the proverbial extra mile, has gained attention in the press in recent years. A Gallup poll found that about 50% of the workforce were “quiet quitters” or disengaged.

It may be even more prevalent in healthcare, where a recent survey found that 57% of frontline medical staff, including NPs and physician assistants (PAs), report being disengaged at work.
 

The Causes of Quiet Quitting

Potential causes of quiet quitting among PAs and NPs include:

• Unrealistic care expectations. They ask you to give your all to patients, handle everything, and do it all in under 15 minutes since that’s how much time the appointment allows, Ms. Adams said.
• Lack of trust or respect. Physicians don’t always respect the role that PAs and NPs play in a practice.
• Dissatisfaction with leadership or administration. There’s often a feeling that the PA or NP isn’t “heard” or appreciated.
• Dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.
• Moral injury. “There’s no way to escape being morally injured when you work with an at-risk population,” said Ms. Adams. “You may see someone who has 20-24 determinants of health, and you’re expected to schlep them through in 8 minutes — you know you’re not able to do what they need.”

What Quiet Quitting Looks Like

Terri Smith*, an NP at an academic medical center outpatient clinic in rural Vermont, said that, while she feels appreciated by her patients and her team, there’s poor communication from the administration, which has caused her to quietly quit.

“I stopped saying ‘yes’ to all the normal committee work and the extra stuff that used to add a lot to my professional enjoyment,” she said. “The last couple of years, my whole motto is to nod and smile when administration says to do something — to put your head down and take care of your patients.”

While the term “quiet quitting” may be new, the issue is not, said Bridget Roberts, PhD, a healthcare executive who ran a large physician’s group of 100 healthcare providers in Jacksonville, Florida, for a decade. “Quiet quitting is a fancy title for employees who are completely disengaged,” said Dr. Roberts. “When they’re on the way out, they ‘check the box’. That’s not a new thing.”

“Typically, the first thing you see is a lot of frustration in that they aren’t able to complete the tasks they have at hand,” said Rebecca Day, PMNHP, a doctoral-educated NP and director of nursing practice at a Federally Qualified Health Center in Corbin, Kentucky. “Staff may be overworked and not have enough time to do what’s required of them with patient care as well as the paperwork required behind the scenes. It [quiet quitting] is doing just enough to get by, but shortcutting as much as they can to try to save some time.”
 

Addressing Quiet Quitting

Those kinds of shortcuts may affect patients, admits Ms. Smith. “I do think it starts to seep into patient care,” she said. “And that really doesn’t feel good ... at our institution, I’m not just an NP — I’m the nurse, the doctor, the secretary — I’m everybody, and for the last year, almost every single day in clinic, I’m apologizing [to a patient] because we can’t do something.”

Watching for this frustration can help alert administrators to NPs and PAs who may be “checking out” at work. Open lines of communication can help you address the issue. “Ask questions like ‘What could we do differently to make your day easier?’” said Dr. Roberts. Understanding the day-to-day issues NPs and PAs face at work can help in developing a plan to address disengagement.

When Dr. Day sees quiet quitting at her practice, she talks with the advance practice provider about what’s causing the issue. “’Are you overworked? Are you understaffed? Are there problems at home? Do you feel you’re receiving inadequate pay?’ ” she said. “The first thing to do is address that and find mutual ground on the issues…deal with the person as a person and then go back and deal with the person as an employee. If your staff isn’t happy, your clinic isn’t going to be productive.”

Finally, while reasons for quiet quitting may vary, cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where NPs and PAs feel appreciated and valued can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting. “Get to know your advanced practice providers,” said Ms. Adams. “Understand their strengths and what they’re about. It’s not an ‘us vs them’ ... there is a lot more commonality when we approach it that way.” Respect for the integral role that NPs and PAs play in your practice can help reduce the risk for quiet quitting — and help provide better patient care.

*Names have been changed.

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

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Physicians are called to record clinical details of patients with asthma undergoing biologic therapy to monitor clinical remission and keep an eye on eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) symptoms as patients come off the medications, according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.

Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.

In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
 

Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma

Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.

To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.

GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.

An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”

He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
 

Biologics and EGPA

In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.

The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.

The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.

The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Night owls — individuals with late chronotypes — may be at an increased risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), beyond the risks conferred by an unhealthy lifestyle, research presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes suggested.

In the study, night owls were almost 50% more likely to develop T2D than those who went to sleep earlier.

“The magnitude of this risk was more than I expected, [although] residual confounding may have occurred,” said Jeroen van der Velde, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands, who presented the study.

“Late chronotype has previously been associated with unhealthy lifestyle and overweight or obesity and, subsequently, cardiometabolic diseases,” he said in an interview. However, although the current study found that individuals with late chronotypes did indeed have larger waists and more visceral fat, “we (and others) believe that lifestyle cannot fully explain the relation between late chronotype and metabolic disorders.”

“In addition,” he noted, “previous studies that observed that late chronotype is associated with overweight or obesity mainly focused on body mass index [BMI]. However, BMI alone does not provide accurate information regarding fat distribution in the body. People with similar BMI may have different underlying fat distribution, and this may be more relevant than BMI for metabolic risk.”

The researchers examined associations between chronotype and BMI, waist circumference, visceral fat, liver fat, and the risk for T2D in a middle-aged population from the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study. Among the 5026 participants, the mean age was 56 years, 54% were women, and mean BMI was 30.

Using data from the study, the study investigators calculated the midpoint of sleep (MPS) and divided participants into three chronotypes: Early MPS < 2:30 PM (20% of participants); intermediate MPS 2:30–4:00 PM (reference category; 60% of participants); and late MPS ≥ 4:00 PM (20% of participants). BMI and waist circumference were measured in all participants, and visceral fat and liver fat were measured in 1576 participants using MRI scans and MR spectroscopy, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 6.6 years, 225 participants were diagnosed with T2D. After adjustment for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, diet quality, sleep quality and duration, and total body fat, participants with a late chronotype had a 46% increased risk for T2D.

Further, those with a late chronotype had 0.7 higher BMI, 1.9-cm larger waist circumference, 7 cm² more visceral fat, and 14% more liver fat.
 

Body Clock Out of Sync?

“Late chronotype was associated with increased ectopic body fat and with an increased risk of T2D independent of lifestyle factors and is an emerging risk factor for metabolic diseases,” the researchers concluded.

“A likely explanation is that the circadian rhythm or body clock in late chronotypes is out of sync with the work and social schedules followed by society,” Dr. van der Velde suggested. “This can lead to circadian misalignment, which we know can lead to metabolic disturbances and ultimately type 2 diabetes.”

Might trying to adjust chronotype earlier in life have an effect on risk?

“Chronotype, as measured via midpoint of sleep, does change a lot in the first 30 years or so in life,” he said. “After that it seems to stabilize. I suppose that if you adapt an intermediate or early chronotype around the age of 30 years, this will help to maintain an earlier chronotype later in life, although we cannot answer this from our study.”

Nevertheless, with respect to T2D risk, “chronotype is likely only part of the puzzle,” he noted.

“People with late chronotypes typically eat late in the evening, and this has also been associated with adverse metabolic effects. At this stage, we do not know if a person changes his/her chronotype that this will also lead to metabolic improvements. More research is needed before we can make recommendations regarding chronotype and timing of other lifestyle behaviors.”

Commenting on the study, Gianluca Iacobellis, MD, PhD, director of the University of Miami Hospital Diabetes Service, Coral Gables, Florida, said: “Interesting data. Altering the physiological circadian rhythm can affect the complex hormonal system — including cortisol, ghrelin, leptin, and serotonin — that regulates insulin sensitivity, glucose, and blood pressure control. The night owl may become more insulin resistant and therefore at higher risk of developing diabetes.”

Like Dr. van der Velde, he noted that “late sleep may be associated with night binging that can cause weight gain and ultimately obesity, further increasing the risk of diabetes.”

Dr. Iacobellis’s group recently showed that vital exhaustion, which is characterized by fatigue and loss of vigor, is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk for and markers of visceral adiposity.

“Abnormal circadian rhythms can be easily associated with vital exhaustion,” he said. Therefore, night owls with more visceral than peripheral fat accumulation might also be at higher cardiometabolic risk through that mechanism.

“However environmental factors and family history can play an important role too,” he added.

Regardless of the mechanisms involved, “preventive actions should be taken to educate teenagers and individuals at higher risk to have healthy sleep habits,” Dr. Iacobellis concluded.

No information regarding funding was provided; Dr. van der Velde and Dr. Iacobellis reported no conflicts of interest.

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

MADRID — Night owls — individuals with late chronotypes — may be at an increased risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), beyond the risks conferred by an unhealthy lifestyle, research presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes suggested.

In the study, night owls were almost 50% more likely to develop T2D than those who went to sleep earlier.

“The magnitude of this risk was more than I expected, [although] residual confounding may have occurred,” said Jeroen van der Velde, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands, who presented the study.

“Late chronotype has previously been associated with unhealthy lifestyle and overweight or obesity and, subsequently, cardiometabolic diseases,” he said in an interview. However, although the current study found that individuals with late chronotypes did indeed have larger waists and more visceral fat, “we (and others) believe that lifestyle cannot fully explain the relation between late chronotype and metabolic disorders.”

“In addition,” he noted, “previous studies that observed that late chronotype is associated with overweight or obesity mainly focused on body mass index [BMI]. However, BMI alone does not provide accurate information regarding fat distribution in the body. People with similar BMI may have different underlying fat distribution, and this may be more relevant than BMI for metabolic risk.”

The researchers examined associations between chronotype and BMI, waist circumference, visceral fat, liver fat, and the risk for T2D in a middle-aged population from the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study. Among the 5026 participants, the mean age was 56 years, 54% were women, and mean BMI was 30.

Using data from the study, the study investigators calculated the midpoint of sleep (MPS) and divided participants into three chronotypes: Early MPS < 2:30 PM (20% of participants); intermediate MPS 2:30–4:00 PM (reference category; 60% of participants); and late MPS ≥ 4:00 PM (20% of participants). BMI and waist circumference were measured in all participants, and visceral fat and liver fat were measured in 1576 participants using MRI scans and MR spectroscopy, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 6.6 years, 225 participants were diagnosed with T2D. After adjustment for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, diet quality, sleep quality and duration, and total body fat, participants with a late chronotype had a 46% increased risk for T2D.

Further, those with a late chronotype had 0.7 higher BMI, 1.9-cm larger waist circumference, 7 cm² more visceral fat, and 14% more liver fat.
 

Body Clock Out of Sync?

“Late chronotype was associated with increased ectopic body fat and with an increased risk of T2D independent of lifestyle factors and is an emerging risk factor for metabolic diseases,” the researchers concluded.

“A likely explanation is that the circadian rhythm or body clock in late chronotypes is out of sync with the work and social schedules followed by society,” Dr. van der Velde suggested. “This can lead to circadian misalignment, which we know can lead to metabolic disturbances and ultimately type 2 diabetes.”

Might trying to adjust chronotype earlier in life have an effect on risk?

“Chronotype, as measured via midpoint of sleep, does change a lot in the first 30 years or so in life,” he said. “After that it seems to stabilize. I suppose that if you adapt an intermediate or early chronotype around the age of 30 years, this will help to maintain an earlier chronotype later in life, although we cannot answer this from our study.”

Nevertheless, with respect to T2D risk, “chronotype is likely only part of the puzzle,” he noted.

“People with late chronotypes typically eat late in the evening, and this has also been associated with adverse metabolic effects. At this stage, we do not know if a person changes his/her chronotype that this will also lead to metabolic improvements. More research is needed before we can make recommendations regarding chronotype and timing of other lifestyle behaviors.”

Commenting on the study, Gianluca Iacobellis, MD, PhD, director of the University of Miami Hospital Diabetes Service, Coral Gables, Florida, said: “Interesting data. Altering the physiological circadian rhythm can affect the complex hormonal system — including cortisol, ghrelin, leptin, and serotonin — that regulates insulin sensitivity, glucose, and blood pressure control. The night owl may become more insulin resistant and therefore at higher risk of developing diabetes.”

Like Dr. van der Velde, he noted that “late sleep may be associated with night binging that can cause weight gain and ultimately obesity, further increasing the risk of diabetes.”

Dr. Iacobellis’s group recently showed that vital exhaustion, which is characterized by fatigue and loss of vigor, is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk for and markers of visceral adiposity.

“Abnormal circadian rhythms can be easily associated with vital exhaustion,” he said. Therefore, night owls with more visceral than peripheral fat accumulation might also be at higher cardiometabolic risk through that mechanism.

“However environmental factors and family history can play an important role too,” he added.

Regardless of the mechanisms involved, “preventive actions should be taken to educate teenagers and individuals at higher risk to have healthy sleep habits,” Dr. Iacobellis concluded.

No information regarding funding was provided; Dr. van der Velde and Dr. Iacobellis reported no conflicts of interest.

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

MADRID — Night owls — individuals with late chronotypes — may be at an increased risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), beyond the risks conferred by an unhealthy lifestyle, research presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes suggested.

In the study, night owls were almost 50% more likely to develop T2D than those who went to sleep earlier.

“The magnitude of this risk was more than I expected, [although] residual confounding may have occurred,” said Jeroen van der Velde, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands, who presented the study.

“Late chronotype has previously been associated with unhealthy lifestyle and overweight or obesity and, subsequently, cardiometabolic diseases,” he said in an interview. However, although the current study found that individuals with late chronotypes did indeed have larger waists and more visceral fat, “we (and others) believe that lifestyle cannot fully explain the relation between late chronotype and metabolic disorders.”

“In addition,” he noted, “previous studies that observed that late chronotype is associated with overweight or obesity mainly focused on body mass index [BMI]. However, BMI alone does not provide accurate information regarding fat distribution in the body. People with similar BMI may have different underlying fat distribution, and this may be more relevant than BMI for metabolic risk.”

The researchers examined associations between chronotype and BMI, waist circumference, visceral fat, liver fat, and the risk for T2D in a middle-aged population from the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study. Among the 5026 participants, the mean age was 56 years, 54% were women, and mean BMI was 30.

Using data from the study, the study investigators calculated the midpoint of sleep (MPS) and divided participants into three chronotypes: Early MPS < 2:30 PM (20% of participants); intermediate MPS 2:30–4:00 PM (reference category; 60% of participants); and late MPS ≥ 4:00 PM (20% of participants). BMI and waist circumference were measured in all participants, and visceral fat and liver fat were measured in 1576 participants using MRI scans and MR spectroscopy, respectively.

During a median follow-up of 6.6 years, 225 participants were diagnosed with T2D. After adjustment for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake, diet quality, sleep quality and duration, and total body fat, participants with a late chronotype had a 46% increased risk for T2D.

Further, those with a late chronotype had 0.7 higher BMI, 1.9-cm larger waist circumference, 7 cm² more visceral fat, and 14% more liver fat.
 

Body Clock Out of Sync?

“Late chronotype was associated with increased ectopic body fat and with an increased risk of T2D independent of lifestyle factors and is an emerging risk factor for metabolic diseases,” the researchers concluded.

“A likely explanation is that the circadian rhythm or body clock in late chronotypes is out of sync with the work and social schedules followed by society,” Dr. van der Velde suggested. “This can lead to circadian misalignment, which we know can lead to metabolic disturbances and ultimately type 2 diabetes.”

Might trying to adjust chronotype earlier in life have an effect on risk?

“Chronotype, as measured via midpoint of sleep, does change a lot in the first 30 years or so in life,” he said. “After that it seems to stabilize. I suppose that if you adapt an intermediate or early chronotype around the age of 30 years, this will help to maintain an earlier chronotype later in life, although we cannot answer this from our study.”

Nevertheless, with respect to T2D risk, “chronotype is likely only part of the puzzle,” he noted.

“People with late chronotypes typically eat late in the evening, and this has also been associated with adverse metabolic effects. At this stage, we do not know if a person changes his/her chronotype that this will also lead to metabolic improvements. More research is needed before we can make recommendations regarding chronotype and timing of other lifestyle behaviors.”

Commenting on the study, Gianluca Iacobellis, MD, PhD, director of the University of Miami Hospital Diabetes Service, Coral Gables, Florida, said: “Interesting data. Altering the physiological circadian rhythm can affect the complex hormonal system — including cortisol, ghrelin, leptin, and serotonin — that regulates insulin sensitivity, glucose, and blood pressure control. The night owl may become more insulin resistant and therefore at higher risk of developing diabetes.”

Like Dr. van der Velde, he noted that “late sleep may be associated with night binging that can cause weight gain and ultimately obesity, further increasing the risk of diabetes.”

Dr. Iacobellis’s group recently showed that vital exhaustion, which is characterized by fatigue and loss of vigor, is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk for and markers of visceral adiposity.

“Abnormal circadian rhythms can be easily associated with vital exhaustion,” he said. Therefore, night owls with more visceral than peripheral fat accumulation might also be at higher cardiometabolic risk through that mechanism.

“However environmental factors and family history can play an important role too,” he added.

Regardless of the mechanisms involved, “preventive actions should be taken to educate teenagers and individuals at higher risk to have healthy sleep habits,” Dr. Iacobellis concluded.

No information regarding funding was provided; Dr. van der Velde and Dr. Iacobellis reported no conflicts of interest.

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

VIENNA — Advances in genetic testing and newly discovered biomarkers can help screen newborns and monitor inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations in patients diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

At the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress, clinical researchers presented results from the Turkish context.

Cystic fibrosis is the most common genetic disorder among Caucasians. The average prevalence at birth in Europe is 1 in 5000, whereas the overall population averages 1 in 9000. Both rates vary significantly based on geographic area. In the central Anatolia region, one study found that the incidence of cystic fibrosis is 1 in 3400 live births.

Çigdem Korkmaz, a researcher at the Department of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa in Istanbul, Turkey, said that diagnosis in Turkey is especially challenging because of the genetic diversity of cystic fibrosis within the population. She said genetic testing might be necessary to catch missed cases by traditional screening methods.
 

Genetic Testing Picks Up Missed Cases

In 2022, 30 European countries run newborn bloodspot screening for cystic fibrosis, with 26 national programs. Screening protocols vary between countries but generally involve initial screening using an immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) blood test. Follow-up testing may include a second IRT test, DNA analysis for common CFTR mutations, and sweat chloride test (SCT).

Turkey introduced newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in 2015. Newborns with an elevated IRT and confirmatory SCT undergo genetic testing. However, in a retrospective study, researchers found that IRT tests turn many false-positive results, and some patients who turn a normal SCT are diagnosed with the disease through genetic testing.

The study included 205 infants referred to a tertiary care center in Istanbul between January 2015 and January 2023 following an elevator IRT result. The researchers analyzed the clinical and sociodemographic data, IRT and SCT values, and genetic analysis results.

They found that cystic fibrosis was confirmed in only 30% newborns, while genetic testing could identify nine cases otherwise missed by SCT. “The high false-positive rate of the current screening strategy suggests that the IRT thresholds used in Turkey may be too low,” said Ms. Korkmaz, who presented the study at the ERS Congress. She added that genetic testing might be important, especially in patients with normal SCT results. “Early diagnosis means these patients avoid missing or delaying treatments.”
 

Biomarkers for Monitoring Cystic Fibrosis Exacerbations

C-reactive protein (CRP) blood testing is typically used in monitoring inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations in patients who have already been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. CRP is an inflammatory biomarker that increases in patients with cystic fibrosis during pulmonary exacerbations and settles with treatment.

Researchers at Gazi University in Ankara, Turkey, found other biomarkers to identify inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations with great sensitivity and specificity in patients with cystic fibrosis.

Over 3 years, from 2021 to 2024, the researchers analyzed blood samples from 54 children aged 1-18 years during exacerbation and non-exacerbation periods. Besides CRP, they tested CRP/albumin (ALB) ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), delivered NLR (dNLR), and systemic immune inflammation (SII).

All biomarkers increased during exacerbation episodes. All showed high specificity and sensitivity:

• CPR/ALB had a specificity of 81% and a sensitivity of 90% at a cutoff of 1.7 mg/dL.
• SII had a specificity of 86% and a sensitivity of 67% at a cutoff of 426 mg/dL.
• NLR had a specificity of 62% and a sensitivity of 79% at a cutoff of 2.2 mg/dL.
• SII had a specificity of 86% and a sensitivity of 67% at a cutoff of 426 mg/dL.
• dNLR had a specificity of 71% and a sensitivity of 66% at a cutoff of 1.15 mg/dL.
• In comparison, CPR had a specificity of 85% and a sensitivity of 84% at a cutoff of 6.2 mg/dL.

Ayse Tana Aslan, a professor at the Department of Pediatric Pulmonology, Faculty of Medicine, at Gazi University in Ankara, Turkey, who presented the results at the ERS Congress, said that these biomarkers can be easily and quickly identified with a blood test while waiting on phlegm culture results, which can take days. “It is important to predict inflammation and exacerbation quickly so that patients can start a course of antibiotics as soon as possible,” she said.

Ms. Korkmaz and Ms. Aslan reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Advances in genetic testing and newly discovered biomarkers can help screen newborns and monitor inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations in patients diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

At the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress, clinical researchers presented results from the Turkish context.

Cystic fibrosis is the most common genetic disorder among Caucasians. The average prevalence at birth in Europe is 1 in 5000, whereas the overall population averages 1 in 9000. Both rates vary significantly based on geographic area. In the central Anatolia region, one study found that the incidence of cystic fibrosis is 1 in 3400 live births.

Çigdem Korkmaz, a researcher at the Department of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa in Istanbul, Turkey, said that diagnosis in Turkey is especially challenging because of the genetic diversity of cystic fibrosis within the population. She said genetic testing might be necessary to catch missed cases by traditional screening methods.
 

Genetic Testing Picks Up Missed Cases

In 2022, 30 European countries run newborn bloodspot screening for cystic fibrosis, with 26 national programs. Screening protocols vary between countries but generally involve initial screening using an immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) blood test. Follow-up testing may include a second IRT test, DNA analysis for common CFTR mutations, and sweat chloride test (SCT).

Turkey introduced newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in 2015. Newborns with an elevated IRT and confirmatory SCT undergo genetic testing. However, in a retrospective study, researchers found that IRT tests turn many false-positive results, and some patients who turn a normal SCT are diagnosed with the disease through genetic testing.

The study included 205 infants referred to a tertiary care center in Istanbul between January 2015 and January 2023 following an elevator IRT result. The researchers analyzed the clinical and sociodemographic data, IRT and SCT values, and genetic analysis results.

They found that cystic fibrosis was confirmed in only 30% newborns, while genetic testing could identify nine cases otherwise missed by SCT. “The high false-positive rate of the current screening strategy suggests that the IRT thresholds used in Turkey may be too low,” said Ms. Korkmaz, who presented the study at the ERS Congress. She added that genetic testing might be important, especially in patients with normal SCT results. “Early diagnosis means these patients avoid missing or delaying treatments.”
 

Biomarkers for Monitoring Cystic Fibrosis Exacerbations

C-reactive protein (CRP) blood testing is typically used in monitoring inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations in patients who have already been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. CRP is an inflammatory biomarker that increases in patients with cystic fibrosis during pulmonary exacerbations and settles with treatment.

Researchers at Gazi University in Ankara, Turkey, found other biomarkers to identify inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations with great sensitivity and specificity in patients with cystic fibrosis.

Over 3 years, from 2021 to 2024, the researchers analyzed blood samples from 54 children aged 1-18 years during exacerbation and non-exacerbation periods. Besides CRP, they tested CRP/albumin (ALB) ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), delivered NLR (dNLR), and systemic immune inflammation (SII).

All biomarkers increased during exacerbation episodes. All showed high specificity and sensitivity:

• CPR/ALB had a specificity of 81% and a sensitivity of 90% at a cutoff of 1.7 mg/dL.
• SII had a specificity of 86% and a sensitivity of 67% at a cutoff of 426 mg/dL.
• NLR had a specificity of 62% and a sensitivity of 79% at a cutoff of 2.2 mg/dL.
• SII had a specificity of 86% and a sensitivity of 67% at a cutoff of 426 mg/dL.
• dNLR had a specificity of 71% and a sensitivity of 66% at a cutoff of 1.15 mg/dL.
• In comparison, CPR had a specificity of 85% and a sensitivity of 84% at a cutoff of 6.2 mg/dL.

Ayse Tana Aslan, a professor at the Department of Pediatric Pulmonology, Faculty of Medicine, at Gazi University in Ankara, Turkey, who presented the results at the ERS Congress, said that these biomarkers can be easily and quickly identified with a blood test while waiting on phlegm culture results, which can take days. “It is important to predict inflammation and exacerbation quickly so that patients can start a course of antibiotics as soon as possible,” she said.

Ms. Korkmaz and Ms. Aslan reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Advances in genetic testing and newly discovered biomarkers can help screen newborns and monitor inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations in patients diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

At the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress, clinical researchers presented results from the Turkish context.

Cystic fibrosis is the most common genetic disorder among Caucasians. The average prevalence at birth in Europe is 1 in 5000, whereas the overall population averages 1 in 9000. Both rates vary significantly based on geographic area. In the central Anatolia region, one study found that the incidence of cystic fibrosis is 1 in 3400 live births.

Çigdem Korkmaz, a researcher at the Department of Pediatric Pulmonology at the Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa in Istanbul, Turkey, said that diagnosis in Turkey is especially challenging because of the genetic diversity of cystic fibrosis within the population. She said genetic testing might be necessary to catch missed cases by traditional screening methods.
 

Genetic Testing Picks Up Missed Cases

In 2022, 30 European countries run newborn bloodspot screening for cystic fibrosis, with 26 national programs. Screening protocols vary between countries but generally involve initial screening using an immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) blood test. Follow-up testing may include a second IRT test, DNA analysis for common CFTR mutations, and sweat chloride test (SCT).

Turkey introduced newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in 2015. Newborns with an elevated IRT and confirmatory SCT undergo genetic testing. However, in a retrospective study, researchers found that IRT tests turn many false-positive results, and some patients who turn a normal SCT are diagnosed with the disease through genetic testing.

The study included 205 infants referred to a tertiary care center in Istanbul between January 2015 and January 2023 following an elevator IRT result. The researchers analyzed the clinical and sociodemographic data, IRT and SCT values, and genetic analysis results.

They found that cystic fibrosis was confirmed in only 30% newborns, while genetic testing could identify nine cases otherwise missed by SCT. “The high false-positive rate of the current screening strategy suggests that the IRT thresholds used in Turkey may be too low,” said Ms. Korkmaz, who presented the study at the ERS Congress. She added that genetic testing might be important, especially in patients with normal SCT results. “Early diagnosis means these patients avoid missing or delaying treatments.”
 

Biomarkers for Monitoring Cystic Fibrosis Exacerbations

C-reactive protein (CRP) blood testing is typically used in monitoring inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations in patients who have already been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. CRP is an inflammatory biomarker that increases in patients with cystic fibrosis during pulmonary exacerbations and settles with treatment.

Researchers at Gazi University in Ankara, Turkey, found other biomarkers to identify inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations with great sensitivity and specificity in patients with cystic fibrosis.

Over 3 years, from 2021 to 2024, the researchers analyzed blood samples from 54 children aged 1-18 years during exacerbation and non-exacerbation periods. Besides CRP, they tested CRP/albumin (ALB) ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), delivered NLR (dNLR), and systemic immune inflammation (SII).

All biomarkers increased during exacerbation episodes. All showed high specificity and sensitivity:

• CPR/ALB had a specificity of 81% and a sensitivity of 90% at a cutoff of 1.7 mg/dL.
• SII had a specificity of 86% and a sensitivity of 67% at a cutoff of 426 mg/dL.
• NLR had a specificity of 62% and a sensitivity of 79% at a cutoff of 2.2 mg/dL.
• SII had a specificity of 86% and a sensitivity of 67% at a cutoff of 426 mg/dL.
• dNLR had a specificity of 71% and a sensitivity of 66% at a cutoff of 1.15 mg/dL.
• In comparison, CPR had a specificity of 85% and a sensitivity of 84% at a cutoff of 6.2 mg/dL.

Ayse Tana Aslan, a professor at the Department of Pediatric Pulmonology, Faculty of Medicine, at Gazi University in Ankara, Turkey, who presented the results at the ERS Congress, said that these biomarkers can be easily and quickly identified with a blood test while waiting on phlegm culture results, which can take days. “It is important to predict inflammation and exacerbation quickly so that patients can start a course of antibiotics as soon as possible,” she said.

Ms. Korkmaz and Ms. Aslan reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments. More objective tests like blood eosinophil counts are needed for early diagnosis and to avoid unnecessary medication use in children unlikely to develop asthma.

Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
 

Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness 

In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”

Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.

Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.

Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.

“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
 

How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia

Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.

Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.

Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.

Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”

Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments. More objective tests like blood eosinophil counts are needed for early diagnosis and to avoid unnecessary medication use in children unlikely to develop asthma.

Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
 

Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness 

In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”

Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.

Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.

Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.

“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
 

How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia

Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.

Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.

Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.

Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”

Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments. More objective tests like blood eosinophil counts are needed for early diagnosis and to avoid unnecessary medication use in children unlikely to develop asthma.

Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
 

Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness 

In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”

Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.

Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.

Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.

“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
 

How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia

Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.

Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.

Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.

Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”

Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.