CHEST Physician

TOPLINE:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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:

Oncologists show significant variability in prescribing systemic cancer therapies in the last 30 days of life. Patients treated by oncologists in the top quartile for end-of-life prescribing behavior were almost four and a half times more likely to receive end-of-life therapy than those treated by these specialists in the bottom quartile.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, focusing on patients who died of cancer between 2012 and 2017.
• A total of 17,609 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer were included, treated by 960 oncologists across 388 practices.
• Patients were required to have had at least one systemic cancer therapy claim in the last 180 days of life, with the treating oncologist identified on the basis of the therapy claim closest to the time of death.
• The study used multilevel models to estimate oncologists’ rates of providing cancer therapy in the last 30 days of life, adjusting for patient characteristics and practice variation.
• Functional status was assessed on the basis of paid claims for durable medical equipment in the last 60 months of life, with scores categorized as 0, 1, ≥ 2, or unknown.

TAKEAWAY:

• Oncologists in the 95th percentile for high end-of-life prescribing behavior had a 45% adjusted rate of treating patients in the last 30 days of life, compared with 17% among those in the 5th percentile.
• Patients treated by high end-of-life prescribing oncologists had over four times higher odds of receiving systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 4.00-4.89).
• Higher end-of-life prescribing oncologists also had a higher proportion of patients hospitalized in the last 30 days of life than low prescribers (58% vs 51.9%).
• No significant association was found between oncologist prescribing behavior and patient race or ethnicity, except for Black patients who had lower odds of receiving treatment (OR, 0.77; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Given calls to rein in overutilization of end-of-life six to eight cancer therapies, our findings highlight an underappreciated area for further research: How treatment discontinuation before death is shaped by oncologists’ unique treatment propensities. Elucidating the reasons for this remarkable variability in oncologist treatment behavior could inform efforts to reduce end-of-life cancer treatment overutilization,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Login S. George, PhD, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was published online in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on SEER-Medicare data may limit the generalizability of the findings to patients with Medicare Advantage, private insurance, or Medicaid, as well as younger patients. The lack of data on patient preferences and other health characteristics could confound the results. The study focused on systemic therapies and may not be generalizable to other treatments such as clinical trial drugs, oral therapies, surgery, or radiation. The data from 2012 to 2017 may not reflect more recent trends in cancer treatment.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey. George disclosed receiving grants from these organizations. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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.

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

An ancient virus that infected our ancestors tens of millions of years ago may be helping to fuel cancer today, according to a fascinating new study in Science Advances. Targeting these viral remnants still lingering in our DNA could lead to more effective cancer treatment with fewer side effects, the researchers said.

The study “gives a better understanding of how gene regulation can be impacted by these ancient retroviral sequences,” said Dixie Mager, PhD, scientist emeritus at the Terry Fox Laboratory at the British Columbia Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. (Mager was not involved in the study.)

Long thought to be “junk” DNA with no biologic function, “endogenous retroviruses,” which have mutated over time and lost their ability to create the virus, are now known to regulate genes — allowing some genes to turn on and off. Research in recent years suggests they may play a role in diseases like cancer.

But scientists weren’t exactly sure what that role was, said senior study author Edward Chuong, PhD, a genome biologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Most studies have looked at whether endogenous retroviruses code for proteins that influence cancer. But these ancient viral strands usually don’t code for proteins at all.

Dr. Chuong took a different approach. Inspired by scientists who’ve studied how viral remnants regulate positive processes (immunity, brain development, or placenta development), he and his team explored whether some might regulate genes that, once activated, help cancer thrive.

Borrowing from epigenomic analysis data (data on molecules that alter gene expression) for 21 cancers mapped by the Cancer Genome Atlas, the researchers identified 19 virus-derived DNA sequences that bind to regulatory proteins more in cancer cells than in healthy cells. All of these could potentially act as gene regulators that promote cancer.

The researchers homed in on one sequence, called LTR10, because it showed especially high activity in several cancers, including lung and colorectal cancer. This DNA segment comes from a virus that entered our ancestors’ genome 30 million years ago, and it’s activated in a third of colorectal cancers.

Using the gene editing technology clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), Dr. Chuong’s team silenced LTR10 in colorectal cancer cells, altering the gene sequence so it couldn’t bind to regulatory proteins. Doing so dampened the activity of nearby cancer-promoting genes.

“They still behaved like cancer cells,” Dr. Chuong said. But “it made the cancer cells more susceptible to radiation. That would imply that the presence of that viral ‘switch’ actually helped those cancer cells survive radiation therapy.”

Previously, two studies had found that viral regulators play a role in promoting two types of cancer: Leukemia and prostate cancer. The new study shows these two cases weren’t flukes. All 21 cancers they looked at had at least one of those 19 viral elements, presumably working as cancer enhancers.

The study also identified what activates LTR10 to make it promote cancer. The culprit is a regulator protein called mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase, which is overactivated in about 40% of all human cancers.

Some cancer drugs — MAP kinase inhibitors — already target MAP kinase, and they’re often the first ones prescribed when a patient is diagnosed with cancer, Dr. Chuong said. As with many cancer treatments, doctors don’t know why they work, just that they do.

“By understanding the mechanisms in the cell, we might be able to make them work better or further optimize their treatment,” he said.

“MAP kinase inhibitors are really like a sledgehammer to the cell,” Dr. Chuong said — meaning they affect many cellular processes, not just those related to cancer.

“If we’re able to say that these viral switches are what’s important, then that could potentially help us develop a more targeted therapy that uses something like CRISPR to silence these viral elements,” he said. Or it could help providers choose a MAP kinase inhibitor from among the dozens available best suited to treat an individual patient and avoid side effects.  

Still, whether the findings translate to real cancer patients remains to be seen. “It’s very, very hard to go the final step of showing in a patient that these actually make a difference in the cancer,” Dr. Mager said.

More lab research, human trials, and at least a few years will be needed before this discovery could help treat cancer. “Directly targeting these elements as a therapy would be at least 5 years out,” Dr. Chuong said, “partly because that application would rely on CRISPR epigenome editing technology that is still being developed for clinical use.”
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

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

Increased levels of the cytokine resistin were significantly associated with an increased risk for death in adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), based on data from more than 1000 individuals.

Resistin, a cytokine expressed in adipocytes, has been associated with poor clinical outcomes in heart failure and cardiovascular disease, Li Gao, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues wrote. While mouse studies have shown that human resistin drives pulmonary vascular remodeling and the development of PAH, the role of resistin as a biomarker for PAH remains unclear.

In a study published in Respiratory Research, the researchers reviewed biospecimens and clinical and genetic data from 1121 adults with PAH, 808 with idiopathic PAH (IPAH), and 313 with scleroderma-associated PAH (SSc-PAH). They examined the associations between serum resistin levels and PAH outcomes in multivariate regression models, using machine-learning algorithms to develop models to predict mortality.

Resistin levels were significantly higher in all patients with PAH and patients with the two subtypes than in control participants (all P < .0001). Resistin was also associated with significant discriminative properties, with area under the curve (AUC) measures of 0.84, 0.82, and 0.91 for PAH overall, IPAH, and SSc-PAH, respectively.

Elevated resistin levels (defined as > 4.54 ng/mL) were significantly associated with an increased risk for death (hazard ratio, 2.6; P < .0087) as well as with older age and shorter distance on the 6-minute walk test (P = .001 for both) and reduced cardiac capacity based on the New York Heart Association functional class (P < .014).

Survival models derived from machine learning confirmed the prognostic value of resistin for mortality in PAH as seen in the random forest model, with an AUC of 0.70. “When we used the AUC values of the ROC curve as criteria to evaluate how well resistin levels discerned the presence of PAH, all three tests had excellent discriminative ability (AUCs were 0.84, 0.82, and 0.91 for all PAH, IPAH, and SSc-PAH, respectively),” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also evaluated three RETN genetic variants (rs7408174, rs3219175, and rs3745367) for a specific association with serum resistin levels and measures of PAH severity. Resistin levels were highest among individuals who were carriers of either the rs3219175 or rs3745367 mutation, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors, including missing data on the 6-minute walk test from several centers, which led to the elimination of that item from the survival analysis. Other limitations included the inability to control for PAH therapy at the time of assessment and the collection of serum at a different time from other clinical variables.

However, “our study provides evidence to support the use of circulating biomarkers as objective and accessible tools for noninvasive PAH risk stratification,” the researchers said. Additional research is needed to strengthen the association, but the findings suggest that resistin represents a novel biomarker for PAH prognostication and risk stratification and may have implications for the development of new treatments.
 

Biomarker Research Expands Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons

“It is a dynamic time in PAH research and clinical management, given the recent approval and use of the BMP/TGF beta balancing agent sotatercept (Winrevair) as an effective agent to target the molecular origins of this disease,” Stephen Chan, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Vascular Medicine Institute at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

The growing number of medications that can be used to treat patients with PAH will likely be more effective if patients are identified and treated early, said Dr. Chan, who was not involved in the study.

However, the time to diagnosis for patients with PAH is still more than 3 years from the start of symptoms, he said. Factors contributing to the delay include the requirement of an invasive cardiac catheterization procedure to make the final diagnosis, the status of PAH as a borderline orphan disease, and the often nonspecific nature of the initial symptoms of PAH.

Consequently, “there is an unmet need to develop effective and preferably noninvasive tools to aid in early diagnosis of PAH,” Dr. Chan added.

The power of the study is in the number of patients included, as much of previous PAH research has involved small studies of patients that could not be replicated or did not generalize to the larger patient population, Dr. Chan said.

The use of the PAH Biobank allows researchers to access a larger population of patients with PAH. “With that in mind, it is not surprising that some markers would emerge as potentially powerful and clinically meaningful,” he said.

“Currently, we do not have a reliable blood-based biomarker that we use in clinical PAH practice, although there are emerging studies that suggest other markers such as metabolites, RNA molecules, and proteins that may serve in the same capacity. If these studies turn out to be reproducible, generalizable, and specific to PAH in larger populations, measuring resistin could be helpful in making early diagnosis, particularly in areas that do not have invasive catheterization facilities (and globally) and for nonspecialists who are puzzled about the nonspecificity of initial symptoms of PAH,” Dr. Chan said.

Resistin could also be incorporated into existing risk stratification scores, such as the REVEAL risk score, that are already used in PAH clinical practice as guidance for when and how to use currently approved medications, he added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on resistin alone, not in combination with other molecules that might perform better. Also, no independent validation cohort was used, he noted. “While PAH Biobank certainly offered larger numbers than we typically see, we would have to see validation in large independent cohorts for us to be convinced that measurements of resistin should be used in clinical practice.”

Resistin is not specific to PAH, which makes interpretation of the results more complicated, said Dr. Chan. “In this study, the authors used a smaller healthy control cohort of 50 patients as a comparison to their PAH cohort. However, they did not compare their PAH cohort with other cohorts that represent these other ‘resistin-relevant diseases’ and thus do not know whether they can distinguish PAH from any of these other diseases based on simply the resistin levels.” The frequency of comorbidities in patients with PAH, such as obesity, other inflammatory diseases, and cardiovascular disease, could confound the resistin levels.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Chan had financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Increased levels of the cytokine resistin were significantly associated with an increased risk for death in adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), based on data from more than 1000 individuals.

Resistin, a cytokine expressed in adipocytes, has been associated with poor clinical outcomes in heart failure and cardiovascular disease, Li Gao, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues wrote. While mouse studies have shown that human resistin drives pulmonary vascular remodeling and the development of PAH, the role of resistin as a biomarker for PAH remains unclear.

In a study published in Respiratory Research, the researchers reviewed biospecimens and clinical and genetic data from 1121 adults with PAH, 808 with idiopathic PAH (IPAH), and 313 with scleroderma-associated PAH (SSc-PAH). They examined the associations between serum resistin levels and PAH outcomes in multivariate regression models, using machine-learning algorithms to develop models to predict mortality.

Resistin levels were significantly higher in all patients with PAH and patients with the two subtypes than in control participants (all P < .0001). Resistin was also associated with significant discriminative properties, with area under the curve (AUC) measures of 0.84, 0.82, and 0.91 for PAH overall, IPAH, and SSc-PAH, respectively.

Elevated resistin levels (defined as > 4.54 ng/mL) were significantly associated with an increased risk for death (hazard ratio, 2.6; P < .0087) as well as with older age and shorter distance on the 6-minute walk test (P = .001 for both) and reduced cardiac capacity based on the New York Heart Association functional class (P < .014).

Survival models derived from machine learning confirmed the prognostic value of resistin for mortality in PAH as seen in the random forest model, with an AUC of 0.70. “When we used the AUC values of the ROC curve as criteria to evaluate how well resistin levels discerned the presence of PAH, all three tests had excellent discriminative ability (AUCs were 0.84, 0.82, and 0.91 for all PAH, IPAH, and SSc-PAH, respectively),” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also evaluated three RETN genetic variants (rs7408174, rs3219175, and rs3745367) for a specific association with serum resistin levels and measures of PAH severity. Resistin levels were highest among individuals who were carriers of either the rs3219175 or rs3745367 mutation, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors, including missing data on the 6-minute walk test from several centers, which led to the elimination of that item from the survival analysis. Other limitations included the inability to control for PAH therapy at the time of assessment and the collection of serum at a different time from other clinical variables.

However, “our study provides evidence to support the use of circulating biomarkers as objective and accessible tools for noninvasive PAH risk stratification,” the researchers said. Additional research is needed to strengthen the association, but the findings suggest that resistin represents a novel biomarker for PAH prognostication and risk stratification and may have implications for the development of new treatments.
 

Biomarker Research Expands Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons

“It is a dynamic time in PAH research and clinical management, given the recent approval and use of the BMP/TGF beta balancing agent sotatercept (Winrevair) as an effective agent to target the molecular origins of this disease,” Stephen Chan, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Vascular Medicine Institute at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

The growing number of medications that can be used to treat patients with PAH will likely be more effective if patients are identified and treated early, said Dr. Chan, who was not involved in the study.

However, the time to diagnosis for patients with PAH is still more than 3 years from the start of symptoms, he said. Factors contributing to the delay include the requirement of an invasive cardiac catheterization procedure to make the final diagnosis, the status of PAH as a borderline orphan disease, and the often nonspecific nature of the initial symptoms of PAH.

Consequently, “there is an unmet need to develop effective and preferably noninvasive tools to aid in early diagnosis of PAH,” Dr. Chan added.

The power of the study is in the number of patients included, as much of previous PAH research has involved small studies of patients that could not be replicated or did not generalize to the larger patient population, Dr. Chan said.

The use of the PAH Biobank allows researchers to access a larger population of patients with PAH. “With that in mind, it is not surprising that some markers would emerge as potentially powerful and clinically meaningful,” he said.

“Currently, we do not have a reliable blood-based biomarker that we use in clinical PAH practice, although there are emerging studies that suggest other markers such as metabolites, RNA molecules, and proteins that may serve in the same capacity. If these studies turn out to be reproducible, generalizable, and specific to PAH in larger populations, measuring resistin could be helpful in making early diagnosis, particularly in areas that do not have invasive catheterization facilities (and globally) and for nonspecialists who are puzzled about the nonspecificity of initial symptoms of PAH,” Dr. Chan said.

Resistin could also be incorporated into existing risk stratification scores, such as the REVEAL risk score, that are already used in PAH clinical practice as guidance for when and how to use currently approved medications, he added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on resistin alone, not in combination with other molecules that might perform better. Also, no independent validation cohort was used, he noted. “While PAH Biobank certainly offered larger numbers than we typically see, we would have to see validation in large independent cohorts for us to be convinced that measurements of resistin should be used in clinical practice.”

Resistin is not specific to PAH, which makes interpretation of the results more complicated, said Dr. Chan. “In this study, the authors used a smaller healthy control cohort of 50 patients as a comparison to their PAH cohort. However, they did not compare their PAH cohort with other cohorts that represent these other ‘resistin-relevant diseases’ and thus do not know whether they can distinguish PAH from any of these other diseases based on simply the resistin levels.” The frequency of comorbidities in patients with PAH, such as obesity, other inflammatory diseases, and cardiovascular disease, could confound the resistin levels.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Chan had financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Increased levels of the cytokine resistin were significantly associated with an increased risk for death in adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), based on data from more than 1000 individuals.

Resistin, a cytokine expressed in adipocytes, has been associated with poor clinical outcomes in heart failure and cardiovascular disease, Li Gao, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues wrote. While mouse studies have shown that human resistin drives pulmonary vascular remodeling and the development of PAH, the role of resistin as a biomarker for PAH remains unclear.

In a study published in Respiratory Research, the researchers reviewed biospecimens and clinical and genetic data from 1121 adults with PAH, 808 with idiopathic PAH (IPAH), and 313 with scleroderma-associated PAH (SSc-PAH). They examined the associations between serum resistin levels and PAH outcomes in multivariate regression models, using machine-learning algorithms to develop models to predict mortality.

Resistin levels were significantly higher in all patients with PAH and patients with the two subtypes than in control participants (all P < .0001). Resistin was also associated with significant discriminative properties, with area under the curve (AUC) measures of 0.84, 0.82, and 0.91 for PAH overall, IPAH, and SSc-PAH, respectively.

Elevated resistin levels (defined as > 4.54 ng/mL) were significantly associated with an increased risk for death (hazard ratio, 2.6; P < .0087) as well as with older age and shorter distance on the 6-minute walk test (P = .001 for both) and reduced cardiac capacity based on the New York Heart Association functional class (P < .014).

Survival models derived from machine learning confirmed the prognostic value of resistin for mortality in PAH as seen in the random forest model, with an AUC of 0.70. “When we used the AUC values of the ROC curve as criteria to evaluate how well resistin levels discerned the presence of PAH, all three tests had excellent discriminative ability (AUCs were 0.84, 0.82, and 0.91 for all PAH, IPAH, and SSc-PAH, respectively),” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also evaluated three RETN genetic variants (rs7408174, rs3219175, and rs3745367) for a specific association with serum resistin levels and measures of PAH severity. Resistin levels were highest among individuals who were carriers of either the rs3219175 or rs3745367 mutation, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors, including missing data on the 6-minute walk test from several centers, which led to the elimination of that item from the survival analysis. Other limitations included the inability to control for PAH therapy at the time of assessment and the collection of serum at a different time from other clinical variables.

However, “our study provides evidence to support the use of circulating biomarkers as objective and accessible tools for noninvasive PAH risk stratification,” the researchers said. Additional research is needed to strengthen the association, but the findings suggest that resistin represents a novel biomarker for PAH prognostication and risk stratification and may have implications for the development of new treatments.
 

Biomarker Research Expands Diagnosis and Treatment Horizons

“It is a dynamic time in PAH research and clinical management, given the recent approval and use of the BMP/TGF beta balancing agent sotatercept (Winrevair) as an effective agent to target the molecular origins of this disease,” Stephen Chan, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Vascular Medicine Institute at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

The growing number of medications that can be used to treat patients with PAH will likely be more effective if patients are identified and treated early, said Dr. Chan, who was not involved in the study.

However, the time to diagnosis for patients with PAH is still more than 3 years from the start of symptoms, he said. Factors contributing to the delay include the requirement of an invasive cardiac catheterization procedure to make the final diagnosis, the status of PAH as a borderline orphan disease, and the often nonspecific nature of the initial symptoms of PAH.

Consequently, “there is an unmet need to develop effective and preferably noninvasive tools to aid in early diagnosis of PAH,” Dr. Chan added.

The power of the study is in the number of patients included, as much of previous PAH research has involved small studies of patients that could not be replicated or did not generalize to the larger patient population, Dr. Chan said.

The use of the PAH Biobank allows researchers to access a larger population of patients with PAH. “With that in mind, it is not surprising that some markers would emerge as potentially powerful and clinically meaningful,” he said.

“Currently, we do not have a reliable blood-based biomarker that we use in clinical PAH practice, although there are emerging studies that suggest other markers such as metabolites, RNA molecules, and proteins that may serve in the same capacity. If these studies turn out to be reproducible, generalizable, and specific to PAH in larger populations, measuring resistin could be helpful in making early diagnosis, particularly in areas that do not have invasive catheterization facilities (and globally) and for nonspecialists who are puzzled about the nonspecificity of initial symptoms of PAH,” Dr. Chan said.

Resistin could also be incorporated into existing risk stratification scores, such as the REVEAL risk score, that are already used in PAH clinical practice as guidance for when and how to use currently approved medications, he added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on resistin alone, not in combination with other molecules that might perform better. Also, no independent validation cohort was used, he noted. “While PAH Biobank certainly offered larger numbers than we typically see, we would have to see validation in large independent cohorts for us to be convinced that measurements of resistin should be used in clinical practice.”

Resistin is not specific to PAH, which makes interpretation of the results more complicated, said Dr. Chan. “In this study, the authors used a smaller healthy control cohort of 50 patients as a comparison to their PAH cohort. However, they did not compare their PAH cohort with other cohorts that represent these other ‘resistin-relevant diseases’ and thus do not know whether they can distinguish PAH from any of these other diseases based on simply the resistin levels.” The frequency of comorbidities in patients with PAH, such as obesity, other inflammatory diseases, and cardiovascular disease, could confound the resistin levels.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Chan had financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

A less favorable balance between physical activity (PA) and sitting time (ST) is associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between PA and ST with the risk for mortality in 5836 middle-aged and older Australian adults (mean age, 56.4 years; 45% men) from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study.
• The Physical Activity and Sitting Time Balance Index (PASTBI) was calculated by dividing the total duration of daily PA by the duration of daily ST.
• Participants were categorized into quartiles on the basis of their PASTBI score, ranging from low PA/high ST to high PA/low ST.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up time of 14.3 years, 885 (15%) all-cause deaths were reported.
• The risk for all-cause mortality was 47% higher in participants with lower engagement in PA and higher ST (low PASTBI) than those with higher engagement in PA and lower ST (high PASTBI; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.79).

IN PRACTICE:

“The utility of the PASTBI in identifying relationships with mortality risk further highlights the importance of achieving a healthier balance in the dual health behaviors of PA [physical activity] and ST [sitting time],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Roslin Botlero, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data for PA and ST, which may have introduced recall or reporting bias. The generalizability of the findings is restricted to a specific set of self-reported questionnaires. Even after adjustment for several potential confounders, other unmeasured or unknown confounders may have influenced the association between PASTBI and all-cause mortality.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study was sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A less favorable balance between physical activity (PA) and sitting time (ST) is associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between PA and ST with the risk for mortality in 5836 middle-aged and older Australian adults (mean age, 56.4 years; 45% men) from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study.
• The Physical Activity and Sitting Time Balance Index (PASTBI) was calculated by dividing the total duration of daily PA by the duration of daily ST.
• Participants were categorized into quartiles on the basis of their PASTBI score, ranging from low PA/high ST to high PA/low ST.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up time of 14.3 years, 885 (15%) all-cause deaths were reported.
• The risk for all-cause mortality was 47% higher in participants with lower engagement in PA and higher ST (low PASTBI) than those with higher engagement in PA and lower ST (high PASTBI; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.79).

IN PRACTICE:

“The utility of the PASTBI in identifying relationships with mortality risk further highlights the importance of achieving a healthier balance in the dual health behaviors of PA [physical activity] and ST [sitting time],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Roslin Botlero, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data for PA and ST, which may have introduced recall or reporting bias. The generalizability of the findings is restricted to a specific set of self-reported questionnaires. Even after adjustment for several potential confounders, other unmeasured or unknown confounders may have influenced the association between PASTBI and all-cause mortality.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study was sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A less favorable balance between physical activity (PA) and sitting time (ST) is associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the association between PA and ST with the risk for mortality in 5836 middle-aged and older Australian adults (mean age, 56.4 years; 45% men) from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study.
• The Physical Activity and Sitting Time Balance Index (PASTBI) was calculated by dividing the total duration of daily PA by the duration of daily ST.
• Participants were categorized into quartiles on the basis of their PASTBI score, ranging from low PA/high ST to high PA/low ST.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up time of 14.3 years, 885 (15%) all-cause deaths were reported.
• The risk for all-cause mortality was 47% higher in participants with lower engagement in PA and higher ST (low PASTBI) than those with higher engagement in PA and lower ST (high PASTBI; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.79).

IN PRACTICE:

“The utility of the PASTBI in identifying relationships with mortality risk further highlights the importance of achieving a healthier balance in the dual health behaviors of PA [physical activity] and ST [sitting time],” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Roslin Botlero, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. It was published online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data for PA and ST, which may have introduced recall or reporting bias. The generalizability of the findings is restricted to a specific set of self-reported questionnaires. Even after adjustment for several potential confounders, other unmeasured or unknown confounders may have influenced the association between PASTBI and all-cause mortality.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study was sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

CHEST

Without a doubt, immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and enhanced survival rates across the different stages of disease. High recurrence rates following complete surgical resection prompted the study of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in earlier, operable stages of disease. This shift toward early application of ICI reflects the larger trend toward merging precision oncology with lung cancer staging. The resulting complexity in treatment and decision making creates systemic and logistical challenges that will require health care systems to adapt and improve.

Adjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

CHEST

Prior to recent approvals for adjuvant immunotherapy, it was standard to give chemotherapy following resection of stage IB-IIIA disease, which offered a statistically nonsignificant survival gain. Recurrence in these patients is believed to be related to postsurgical micrometastasis. The utilization of alternative mechanisms to prevent recurrence is increasingly more common.

Atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, is currently approved as first-line adjuvant treatment following chemotherapy in post-NSCLC resection patients with PD-L1 scores ≥1%. This category one recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is based on results from the IMpower010 trial, which randomized patients to Atezolizumab vs best supportive care. All were early-stage NSCLC, stage IB-IIIA, who underwent resection followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. Statistically significant benefits were found in disease-free survival (DFS) with a trend toward overall survival.¹

The PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 trial evaluated another PD-L1 inhibitor, Pembrolizumab, as adjuvant therapy. Its design largely mirrored the IMPower010 study, but it differed in that the ICI was administered with or without chemotherapy following resection in patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Improvements in DFS were found in the overall population, leading to FDA approval for adjuvant therapy in 2023.²

These approvals require changes to the management of operable NSCLC. Until recently, it was not routine to send surgical specimens for additional testing because adjuvant treatment meant chemotherapy only. However, it is now essential that all surgically resected malignant tissue be sent for genomic sequencing and PD-L1 testing. Selecting the next form of therapy, whether it is an ICI or targeted drug therapy, depends on it.

From a surgical perspective, quality surgery with accurate nodal staging is crucial. The surgical findings can determine and identify those who are candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy. For these same reasons, it is helpful to advise surgeons preoperatively that targeted adjuvant therapy is being considered after resection.
 

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

ICIs have also been used as neoadjuvant treatment for operable NSCLC. In 2021, the Checkmate-816 trial evaluated Nivolumab with platinum doublet chemotherapy prior to resection of stage IB-IIIa NSCLC. When compared with chemotherapy alone, there were significant improvements in EFS, MPR, and time to death or distant metastasis (TTDM) out to 3 years. At a median follow-up time of 41.4 months, only 28% in the nivolumab group had recurrence postsurgery compared with 42% in the chemotherapy-alone group.³ As a result, certain patients who are likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy may additionally receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy before surgical resection. In 2023, the KEYNOTE-671 study demonstrated that neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-IIIb (N2 stage) NSCLC improved EFS. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the EFS was 62.4% in the Pembrolizumab group vs 40.6% in the placebo group (P < .001).⁴

Such changes in treatment options mean patients should be discussed first and simultaneous referrals to oncology and surgery should occur in early-stage NSCLC. Up-front genomic phenotyping and PD-L1 testing may assist in decision making. High PD-L1 levels correlate better with response.

When an ICI-chemotherapy combination is given up front for newly diagnosed NSCLC, there is the potential for large reductions in tumor size and lymph node burden. Although the NCCN does not recommend ICIs to induce resectability, a patient originally deemed inoperable could theoretically become a surgical candidate with neoadjuvant ICI treatment. There is also the potential for toxicity, which could increase the risk of surgery when it does occur. Such scenarios will require frequent tumor board discussions so plans can be adjusted in real time to optimize outcomes as clinical circumstances change.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy for NSCLC

It is clear that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy can improve outcomes for patients with resectable NSCLC. The combination of neoadjuvant with adjuvant immunotherapy/chemotherapy is currently being studied. Two recent phase III clinical trials, NEOTORCH and AEGAEN, have found statistical improvements in EFS and MPR with this approach.^5,6 These studies have not found their way into the NCCN guidelines yet but are sure to be considered in future iterations. Once adopted, the tumor board at each institution will have more options to choose from but many more decisions to make.


References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-1357. [Published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Nov 6;398(10312):1686.]

2. O’Brien M, Paz-Ares L, Marreaud S, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):1274-1286.

3. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(21):1973-1985.

4. Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T, et al. Perioperative pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(6):491-503.

5. Lu S, Zhang W, Wu L, et al. Perioperative toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: the neotorch randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331(3):201-211.

6. Heymach JV, Harpole D, Mitsudomi T, et al. Perioperative durvalumab for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(18):1672-1684.
 

CHEST

Without a doubt, immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and enhanced survival rates across the different stages of disease. High recurrence rates following complete surgical resection prompted the study of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in earlier, operable stages of disease. This shift toward early application of ICI reflects the larger trend toward merging precision oncology with lung cancer staging. The resulting complexity in treatment and decision making creates systemic and logistical challenges that will require health care systems to adapt and improve.

Adjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

CHEST

Prior to recent approvals for adjuvant immunotherapy, it was standard to give chemotherapy following resection of stage IB-IIIA disease, which offered a statistically nonsignificant survival gain. Recurrence in these patients is believed to be related to postsurgical micrometastasis. The utilization of alternative mechanisms to prevent recurrence is increasingly more common.

Atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, is currently approved as first-line adjuvant treatment following chemotherapy in post-NSCLC resection patients with PD-L1 scores ≥1%. This category one recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is based on results from the IMpower010 trial, which randomized patients to Atezolizumab vs best supportive care. All were early-stage NSCLC, stage IB-IIIA, who underwent resection followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. Statistically significant benefits were found in disease-free survival (DFS) with a trend toward overall survival.¹

The PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 trial evaluated another PD-L1 inhibitor, Pembrolizumab, as adjuvant therapy. Its design largely mirrored the IMPower010 study, but it differed in that the ICI was administered with or without chemotherapy following resection in patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Improvements in DFS were found in the overall population, leading to FDA approval for adjuvant therapy in 2023.²

These approvals require changes to the management of operable NSCLC. Until recently, it was not routine to send surgical specimens for additional testing because adjuvant treatment meant chemotherapy only. However, it is now essential that all surgically resected malignant tissue be sent for genomic sequencing and PD-L1 testing. Selecting the next form of therapy, whether it is an ICI or targeted drug therapy, depends on it.

From a surgical perspective, quality surgery with accurate nodal staging is crucial. The surgical findings can determine and identify those who are candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy. For these same reasons, it is helpful to advise surgeons preoperatively that targeted adjuvant therapy is being considered after resection.
 

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

ICIs have also been used as neoadjuvant treatment for operable NSCLC. In 2021, the Checkmate-816 trial evaluated Nivolumab with platinum doublet chemotherapy prior to resection of stage IB-IIIa NSCLC. When compared with chemotherapy alone, there were significant improvements in EFS, MPR, and time to death or distant metastasis (TTDM) out to 3 years. At a median follow-up time of 41.4 months, only 28% in the nivolumab group had recurrence postsurgery compared with 42% in the chemotherapy-alone group.³ As a result, certain patients who are likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy may additionally receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy before surgical resection. In 2023, the KEYNOTE-671 study demonstrated that neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-IIIb (N2 stage) NSCLC improved EFS. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the EFS was 62.4% in the Pembrolizumab group vs 40.6% in the placebo group (P < .001).⁴

Such changes in treatment options mean patients should be discussed first and simultaneous referrals to oncology and surgery should occur in early-stage NSCLC. Up-front genomic phenotyping and PD-L1 testing may assist in decision making. High PD-L1 levels correlate better with response.

When an ICI-chemotherapy combination is given up front for newly diagnosed NSCLC, there is the potential for large reductions in tumor size and lymph node burden. Although the NCCN does not recommend ICIs to induce resectability, a patient originally deemed inoperable could theoretically become a surgical candidate with neoadjuvant ICI treatment. There is also the potential for toxicity, which could increase the risk of surgery when it does occur. Such scenarios will require frequent tumor board discussions so plans can be adjusted in real time to optimize outcomes as clinical circumstances change.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy for NSCLC

It is clear that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy can improve outcomes for patients with resectable NSCLC. The combination of neoadjuvant with adjuvant immunotherapy/chemotherapy is currently being studied. Two recent phase III clinical trials, NEOTORCH and AEGAEN, have found statistical improvements in EFS and MPR with this approach.^5,6 These studies have not found their way into the NCCN guidelines yet but are sure to be considered in future iterations. Once adopted, the tumor board at each institution will have more options to choose from but many more decisions to make.


References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-1357. [Published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Nov 6;398(10312):1686.]

2. O’Brien M, Paz-Ares L, Marreaud S, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):1274-1286.

3. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(21):1973-1985.

4. Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T, et al. Perioperative pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(6):491-503.

5. Lu S, Zhang W, Wu L, et al. Perioperative toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: the neotorch randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331(3):201-211.

6. Heymach JV, Harpole D, Mitsudomi T, et al. Perioperative durvalumab for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(18):1672-1684.
 

CHEST

Without a doubt, immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and enhanced survival rates across the different stages of disease. High recurrence rates following complete surgical resection prompted the study of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in earlier, operable stages of disease. This shift toward early application of ICI reflects the larger trend toward merging precision oncology with lung cancer staging. The resulting complexity in treatment and decision making creates systemic and logistical challenges that will require health care systems to adapt and improve.

Adjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

CHEST

Prior to recent approvals for adjuvant immunotherapy, it was standard to give chemotherapy following resection of stage IB-IIIA disease, which offered a statistically nonsignificant survival gain. Recurrence in these patients is believed to be related to postsurgical micrometastasis. The utilization of alternative mechanisms to prevent recurrence is increasingly more common.

Atezolizumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, is currently approved as first-line adjuvant treatment following chemotherapy in post-NSCLC resection patients with PD-L1 scores ≥1%. This category one recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is based on results from the IMpower010 trial, which randomized patients to Atezolizumab vs best supportive care. All were early-stage NSCLC, stage IB-IIIA, who underwent resection followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. Statistically significant benefits were found in disease-free survival (DFS) with a trend toward overall survival.¹

The PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091 trial evaluated another PD-L1 inhibitor, Pembrolizumab, as adjuvant therapy. Its design largely mirrored the IMPower010 study, but it differed in that the ICI was administered with or without chemotherapy following resection in patients with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC. Improvements in DFS were found in the overall population, leading to FDA approval for adjuvant therapy in 2023.²

These approvals require changes to the management of operable NSCLC. Until recently, it was not routine to send surgical specimens for additional testing because adjuvant treatment meant chemotherapy only. However, it is now essential that all surgically resected malignant tissue be sent for genomic sequencing and PD-L1 testing. Selecting the next form of therapy, whether it is an ICI or targeted drug therapy, depends on it.

From a surgical perspective, quality surgery with accurate nodal staging is crucial. The surgical findings can determine and identify those who are candidates for adjuvant immunotherapy. For these same reasons, it is helpful to advise surgeons preoperatively that targeted adjuvant therapy is being considered after resection.
 

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for NSCLC

ICIs have also been used as neoadjuvant treatment for operable NSCLC. In 2021, the Checkmate-816 trial evaluated Nivolumab with platinum doublet chemotherapy prior to resection of stage IB-IIIa NSCLC. When compared with chemotherapy alone, there were significant improvements in EFS, MPR, and time to death or distant metastasis (TTDM) out to 3 years. At a median follow-up time of 41.4 months, only 28% in the nivolumab group had recurrence postsurgery compared with 42% in the chemotherapy-alone group.³ As a result, certain patients who are likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy may additionally receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy with chemotherapy before surgical resection. In 2023, the KEYNOTE-671 study demonstrated that neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-IIIb (N2 stage) NSCLC improved EFS. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months, the EFS was 62.4% in the Pembrolizumab group vs 40.6% in the placebo group (P < .001).⁴

Such changes in treatment options mean patients should be discussed first and simultaneous referrals to oncology and surgery should occur in early-stage NSCLC. Up-front genomic phenotyping and PD-L1 testing may assist in decision making. High PD-L1 levels correlate better with response.

When an ICI-chemotherapy combination is given up front for newly diagnosed NSCLC, there is the potential for large reductions in tumor size and lymph node burden. Although the NCCN does not recommend ICIs to induce resectability, a patient originally deemed inoperable could theoretically become a surgical candidate with neoadjuvant ICI treatment. There is also the potential for toxicity, which could increase the risk of surgery when it does occur. Such scenarios will require frequent tumor board discussions so plans can be adjusted in real time to optimize outcomes as clinical circumstances change.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy for NSCLC

It is clear that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy can improve outcomes for patients with resectable NSCLC. The combination of neoadjuvant with adjuvant immunotherapy/chemotherapy is currently being studied. Two recent phase III clinical trials, NEOTORCH and AEGAEN, have found statistical improvements in EFS and MPR with this approach.^5,6 These studies have not found their way into the NCCN guidelines yet but are sure to be considered in future iterations. Once adopted, the tumor board at each institution will have more options to choose from but many more decisions to make.


References

1. Felip E, Altorki N, Zhou C, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10308):1344-1357. [Published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Nov 6;398(10312):1686.]

2. O’Brien M, Paz-Ares L, Marreaud S, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy for completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091): an interim analysis of a randomised, triple-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(10):1274-1286.

3. Forde PM, Spicer J, Lu S, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(21):1973-1985.

4. Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T, et al. Perioperative pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(6):491-503.

5. Lu S, Zhang W, Wu L, et al. Perioperative toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: the neotorch randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2024;331(3):201-211.

6. Heymach JV, Harpole D, Mitsudomi T, et al. Perioperative durvalumab for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(18):1672-1684.
 

CHEST

CHEST INFECTIONS AND DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK

Disaster Response and Global Health Section

Patients who are injured do better when treated at trauma centers.

During CHEST 2023 in Honolulu last year, the Disaster Response and Global Health Section hosted a presentation to a packed audience highlighting the history of the trauma model system in America. Attendees learned about the emergence of trauma systems in the US and the survival advantages that trauma centers offer to patients who are injured.

Inception of the first “trauma manual” was during President Lincoln’s term to address the need for a process to care for patients who were injured during the Civil War. By the time World War II occurred, hospitals had established the idea of emergency departments, and the foundations for an emergency medical system (EMS) emerged on the world scene. Eventually, the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 required hospitals to have emergency departments by incentivizing them with federal funding.

The Committee on Trauma was founded in the 1950s as an adaptation of the American College of Surgeons’ 1922 Committee on Fractures. Then, in 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rolled out a federal initiative for all states to develop EMS programs. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences published Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society, paving the way for the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act of 1973, along with the Wedworth-Townsend Paramedic Act in California.

The concept of today’s trauma centers started in 1966 at Cook County Hospital in Chicago and Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore.

CHEST

CHEST INFECTIONS AND DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK

Disaster Response and Global Health Section

Patients who are injured do better when treated at trauma centers.

During CHEST 2023 in Honolulu last year, the Disaster Response and Global Health Section hosted a presentation to a packed audience highlighting the history of the trauma model system in America. Attendees learned about the emergence of trauma systems in the US and the survival advantages that trauma centers offer to patients who are injured.

Inception of the first “trauma manual” was during President Lincoln’s term to address the need for a process to care for patients who were injured during the Civil War. By the time World War II occurred, hospitals had established the idea of emergency departments, and the foundations for an emergency medical system (EMS) emerged on the world scene. Eventually, the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 required hospitals to have emergency departments by incentivizing them with federal funding.

The Committee on Trauma was founded in the 1950s as an adaptation of the American College of Surgeons’ 1922 Committee on Fractures. Then, in 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rolled out a federal initiative for all states to develop EMS programs. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences published Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society, paving the way for the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act of 1973, along with the Wedworth-Townsend Paramedic Act in California.

The concept of today’s trauma centers started in 1966 at Cook County Hospital in Chicago and Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore.

CHEST

CHEST INFECTIONS AND DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK

Disaster Response and Global Health Section

Patients who are injured do better when treated at trauma centers.

During CHEST 2023 in Honolulu last year, the Disaster Response and Global Health Section hosted a presentation to a packed audience highlighting the history of the trauma model system in America. Attendees learned about the emergence of trauma systems in the US and the survival advantages that trauma centers offer to patients who are injured.

Inception of the first “trauma manual” was during President Lincoln’s term to address the need for a process to care for patients who were injured during the Civil War. By the time World War II occurred, hospitals had established the idea of emergency departments, and the foundations for an emergency medical system (EMS) emerged on the world scene. Eventually, the Hill-Burton Act of 1946 required hospitals to have emergency departments by incentivizing them with federal funding.

The Committee on Trauma was founded in the 1950s as an adaptation of the American College of Surgeons’ 1922 Committee on Fractures. Then, in 1966, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rolled out a federal initiative for all states to develop EMS programs. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences published Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society, paving the way for the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act of 1973, along with the Wedworth-Townsend Paramedic Act in California.

The concept of today’s trauma centers started in 1966 at Cook County Hospital in Chicago and Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore.

CHEST

CHEST

OSA is a very prevalent condition in the general population, but still many patients remain undiagnosed and untreated. Prolonged, untreated OSA is an independent risk factor for major cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Therefore, timely diagnosis and treatment are required.

Polysomnography (PSG) remains to this day the gold standard for diagnosing sleep apnea. A standard PSG (type I) is performed in a sleep laboratory in the presence of specialized sleep technicians and utilizes EEG, electrooculogram (EOG), and electromyogram (EMG) to determine sleep stages, oronasal thermal and pressure transducer sensors to monitor airflow, respiratory inductance plethysmography to record respiratory effort, EMG for limb movements, pulse oximetry (PulseOx), ECG, and video or body sensor devices to confirm body position. Rising rates of sleep testing have created demand for an alternative to cumbersome, costly, and resource-intensive in-lab PSGs. As such, home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) has emerged as a simpler, more accessible, and cost-effective alternative diagnostic tool.

In 2007, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) endorsed Portable Monitoring (PM) as an alternative to standard PSG, with the caveat that it should be used only in patients with a high pretest probability of sleep apnea, without respiratory or cardiovascular disorders and comorbid sleep disorders. All HSAT devices (type II-IV) are required to have a minimum of an oronasal thermal sensor/nasal pressure transducer, respiratory inductance plethysmography, and PulseOx. A major limitation of most HSAT devices is the lack of EEG, preventing detection of cortical arousals and wake time, forcing the use of total recording time as a surrogate for total sleep time.

Peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT)-based HSAT devices are unique in this respect, as their proprietary algorithms allow estimates of total sleep time by monitoring changes in peripheral vascular tone. Anyone who has seen a PAT-based HSAT may have noticed very different outputs from traditional HSATs.

PAT is based on the concept that airflow obstruction may lead to a surge in sympathetic tone, causing vasoconstriction and reduced blood volume in the peripheral vascular bed. A PAT-based device measures relative changes in blood volume and combines this information with actigraphy signals, PulseOx, and heart rate to diagnose the presence of respiratory events. Sleep apnea severity stratification is accomplished by the use of pAHI or pRDI (PAT-based apnea-hypopnea index and respiratory disturbance index, respectively).

PAT-based technology was first approved by the FDA in 2001 as a diagnostic tool for sleep apnea. The 2 best-known medical devices are WatchPAT^® and NightOwl^®, both of which have been FDA-approved and studied against PSG. To obtain an accurate and sustainable PAT signal, WatchPAT has a pneumo-optic finger probe designed to generate a uniform, subdiastolic pressure on the finger that minimizes venous blood pooling, prevents uncontrolled venous backflow, and effectively unloads the arterial wall tension without blocking digital arterial flow. NightOwl is a smaller device, with a single fingertip sensor that acquires actigraphy and PPG data to measure heart rate, Pulse Ox, and PAT.

The physiological basis of PAT relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), a noninvasive optical monitoring technique that generates a waveform, which ultimately correlates with the circulatory volume of the respective tissue.¹ The PPG technology relies on the fact that when a specific tissue is exposed to light signal of a specific wavelength, its absorbance by tissue fluctuates with arterial pulsations. Pulse oximetry represents the most used application of PPG. Recent advances in PPG signal analysis have fueled its use in clinical and consumer sleep technologies and allowed new capabilities, including capturing heart rate and rhythm, pulse rate variability, arterial stiffness, and even—with somewhat less accuracy—energy expenditure, maximum O2 consumption, and blood pressure. Combining actigraphy monitoring with PPG technology took both consumer and medical-grade sleep technologies further, allowing the estimation of parameters such as sleep stages, sleep times, and respiratory events. With myriad new sleep trackers claiming to assess total sleep time, wake time, light or deep sleep, and even respiratory events, the obvious clinical question is centered on their comparative accuracy, as well against more traditional PM and the gold standard PSG.

Numerous studies have evaluated the efficacy of PAT-based devices for diagnosing sleep apnea, with variable findings. Many have shown good correlations between mean AHI and pAHI. Others have highlighted significant discrepancies in the measurements between PSG and PAT, questioning the reliability of PAT-based devices in the diagnosis and severity stratification of OSA. One meta-analysis of 14 studies showed a high degree of correlation between pAHI and AHI.² Another study reported a concordance of 80% between PAT-based testing and consecutive PSG, with an increase to 86% at a higher AHI (>15/h).³ A subsequent meta-analysis showed that PAT was significantly less sensitive for diagnosing OSA than PSG, particularly for mild or moderate severity disease, emphasizing the need for further confirmation with PSG when faced with inconclusive or negative results.⁴ A large sleep clinic-based cohort study of 500 patients with OSA showed that WatchPAT devices misclassify OSA in a sizeable proportion of patients (30%-50%), leading to both over- and under-estimation of severity.⁵ Van Pee, et al, found that their PAT-based HSAT NightOwl performed better, using both the 3% and 4% hypopnea scoring rules and a novel near-border zone labeling.⁶

Some of the discordance in AHI between PAT and PSG appears to be related to age and sex. In our large sample comparing PAT to PSG, we found that using PAT-based data in concert with demographic (age, gender) and anthropometric (neck circumference, body mass index) variables improved the diagnostic accuracy of PAT-based testing.⁷ Another study concluded that manual scoring of WatchPAT automated results improved concordance with PSG, particularly in older participants and women. Several studies on WatchPAT recordings have demonstrated significant artifacts and inaccuracies in the PulseOx data. Although WatchPAT employs automated algorithms to remove erroneous data, a thorough visual inspection and manual correction of study data is still essential to derive accurate results.

Recent studies have found that PAT-based tests can also differentiate between central and obstructive respiratory events by using pulse signal upstroke variations caused by changes in intrathoracic pressure and respiratory/chest wall movement recorded by body position sensors, but large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings. Korkalainen, et al, recently employed a deep-learning model to perform sleep staging on the PPG PulseOx signals from nearly 900 PSGs in patients with suspected OSA.⁸ The deep learning approach enabled the differentiation of sleep stages and accurate estimation of the total sleep time. Going forward, this could easily enhance the diagnostic yield of PM recordings and enable cost-efficient, long-term monitoring of sleep.

Although PAT-based home sleep tests have emerged as a simple and convenient option for the evaluation of sleep apnea, several studies have highlighted their limited sensitivity as a screening tool for mild and moderate cases of sleep apnea. Furthermore, the scope of these tests remains limited, rendering them rather unsuitable for assessment of more complex sleep disorders like narcolepsy or restless leg syndrome. Therefore, when OSA is suspected, the PAT-based sleep study is a good screening tool, but negative tests should not preclude further investigation. Where a high probability of sleep apnea exists but PAT-based testing shows no or mild OSA, an in-lab sleep study should be performed.


References

1. Ryals S, Chiang A, Schutte-Rodin S, et al. Photoplethysmography -- new applications for an old technology: a sleep technology review. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(1):189-195.

2. Yalamanchali S, Farajian V, Hamilton C, Pott TR, Samuelson CG, Friedman M. Diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea by peripheral arterial tonometry: meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(12):1343-1350.

3. Röcken J, Schumann DM, Herrmann MJ, et al. Peripheral arterial tonometry versus polysomnography in suspected obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur J Med Res. 2023;28(1):251.

4. Iftikhar IH, Finch CE, Shah AS, Augunstein CA, Ioachimescu OC. A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance of peripheral arterial tonometry studies. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(4):1093-1102.

5. Ioachimescu OC, Allam JS, Samarghandi A, et al. Performance of peripheral arterial tonometry-based testing for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in a large sleep clinic cohort. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16(10):1663-1674.

6. Van Pee B, Massie F, Vits S, et al. A multicentric validation study of a novel home sleep apnea test based on peripheral arterial tonometry. Sleep. 2022;45(5).

7. Ioachimescu OC, Dholakia SA, Venkateshiah SB, et al. Improving the performance of peripheral arterial tonometry-based testing for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. J Investig Med. 2020;68(8):1370-1378.

8. Korkalainen H, Aakko J, Duce B, et al. Deep learning enables sleep staging from photoplethysmogram for patients with suspected sleep apnea. Sleep. 2020;43(11).
 

CHEST

CHEST

OSA is a very prevalent condition in the general population, but still many patients remain undiagnosed and untreated. Prolonged, untreated OSA is an independent risk factor for major cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Therefore, timely diagnosis and treatment are required.

Polysomnography (PSG) remains to this day the gold standard for diagnosing sleep apnea. A standard PSG (type I) is performed in a sleep laboratory in the presence of specialized sleep technicians and utilizes EEG, electrooculogram (EOG), and electromyogram (EMG) to determine sleep stages, oronasal thermal and pressure transducer sensors to monitor airflow, respiratory inductance plethysmography to record respiratory effort, EMG for limb movements, pulse oximetry (PulseOx), ECG, and video or body sensor devices to confirm body position. Rising rates of sleep testing have created demand for an alternative to cumbersome, costly, and resource-intensive in-lab PSGs. As such, home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) has emerged as a simpler, more accessible, and cost-effective alternative diagnostic tool.

In 2007, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) endorsed Portable Monitoring (PM) as an alternative to standard PSG, with the caveat that it should be used only in patients with a high pretest probability of sleep apnea, without respiratory or cardiovascular disorders and comorbid sleep disorders. All HSAT devices (type II-IV) are required to have a minimum of an oronasal thermal sensor/nasal pressure transducer, respiratory inductance plethysmography, and PulseOx. A major limitation of most HSAT devices is the lack of EEG, preventing detection of cortical arousals and wake time, forcing the use of total recording time as a surrogate for total sleep time.

Peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT)-based HSAT devices are unique in this respect, as their proprietary algorithms allow estimates of total sleep time by monitoring changes in peripheral vascular tone. Anyone who has seen a PAT-based HSAT may have noticed very different outputs from traditional HSATs.

PAT is based on the concept that airflow obstruction may lead to a surge in sympathetic tone, causing vasoconstriction and reduced blood volume in the peripheral vascular bed. A PAT-based device measures relative changes in blood volume and combines this information with actigraphy signals, PulseOx, and heart rate to diagnose the presence of respiratory events. Sleep apnea severity stratification is accomplished by the use of pAHI or pRDI (PAT-based apnea-hypopnea index and respiratory disturbance index, respectively).

PAT-based technology was first approved by the FDA in 2001 as a diagnostic tool for sleep apnea. The 2 best-known medical devices are WatchPAT^® and NightOwl^®, both of which have been FDA-approved and studied against PSG. To obtain an accurate and sustainable PAT signal, WatchPAT has a pneumo-optic finger probe designed to generate a uniform, subdiastolic pressure on the finger that minimizes venous blood pooling, prevents uncontrolled venous backflow, and effectively unloads the arterial wall tension without blocking digital arterial flow. NightOwl is a smaller device, with a single fingertip sensor that acquires actigraphy and PPG data to measure heart rate, Pulse Ox, and PAT.

The physiological basis of PAT relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), a noninvasive optical monitoring technique that generates a waveform, which ultimately correlates with the circulatory volume of the respective tissue.¹ The PPG technology relies on the fact that when a specific tissue is exposed to light signal of a specific wavelength, its absorbance by tissue fluctuates with arterial pulsations. Pulse oximetry represents the most used application of PPG. Recent advances in PPG signal analysis have fueled its use in clinical and consumer sleep technologies and allowed new capabilities, including capturing heart rate and rhythm, pulse rate variability, arterial stiffness, and even—with somewhat less accuracy—energy expenditure, maximum O2 consumption, and blood pressure. Combining actigraphy monitoring with PPG technology took both consumer and medical-grade sleep technologies further, allowing the estimation of parameters such as sleep stages, sleep times, and respiratory events. With myriad new sleep trackers claiming to assess total sleep time, wake time, light or deep sleep, and even respiratory events, the obvious clinical question is centered on their comparative accuracy, as well against more traditional PM and the gold standard PSG.

Numerous studies have evaluated the efficacy of PAT-based devices for diagnosing sleep apnea, with variable findings. Many have shown good correlations between mean AHI and pAHI. Others have highlighted significant discrepancies in the measurements between PSG and PAT, questioning the reliability of PAT-based devices in the diagnosis and severity stratification of OSA. One meta-analysis of 14 studies showed a high degree of correlation between pAHI and AHI.² Another study reported a concordance of 80% between PAT-based testing and consecutive PSG, with an increase to 86% at a higher AHI (>15/h).³ A subsequent meta-analysis showed that PAT was significantly less sensitive for diagnosing OSA than PSG, particularly for mild or moderate severity disease, emphasizing the need for further confirmation with PSG when faced with inconclusive or negative results.⁴ A large sleep clinic-based cohort study of 500 patients with OSA showed that WatchPAT devices misclassify OSA in a sizeable proportion of patients (30%-50%), leading to both over- and under-estimation of severity.⁵ Van Pee, et al, found that their PAT-based HSAT NightOwl performed better, using both the 3% and 4% hypopnea scoring rules and a novel near-border zone labeling.⁶

Some of the discordance in AHI between PAT and PSG appears to be related to age and sex. In our large sample comparing PAT to PSG, we found that using PAT-based data in concert with demographic (age, gender) and anthropometric (neck circumference, body mass index) variables improved the diagnostic accuracy of PAT-based testing.⁷ Another study concluded that manual scoring of WatchPAT automated results improved concordance with PSG, particularly in older participants and women. Several studies on WatchPAT recordings have demonstrated significant artifacts and inaccuracies in the PulseOx data. Although WatchPAT employs automated algorithms to remove erroneous data, a thorough visual inspection and manual correction of study data is still essential to derive accurate results.

Recent studies have found that PAT-based tests can also differentiate between central and obstructive respiratory events by using pulse signal upstroke variations caused by changes in intrathoracic pressure and respiratory/chest wall movement recorded by body position sensors, but large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings. Korkalainen, et al, recently employed a deep-learning model to perform sleep staging on the PPG PulseOx signals from nearly 900 PSGs in patients with suspected OSA.⁸ The deep learning approach enabled the differentiation of sleep stages and accurate estimation of the total sleep time. Going forward, this could easily enhance the diagnostic yield of PM recordings and enable cost-efficient, long-term monitoring of sleep.

Although PAT-based home sleep tests have emerged as a simple and convenient option for the evaluation of sleep apnea, several studies have highlighted their limited sensitivity as a screening tool for mild and moderate cases of sleep apnea. Furthermore, the scope of these tests remains limited, rendering them rather unsuitable for assessment of more complex sleep disorders like narcolepsy or restless leg syndrome. Therefore, when OSA is suspected, the PAT-based sleep study is a good screening tool, but negative tests should not preclude further investigation. Where a high probability of sleep apnea exists but PAT-based testing shows no or mild OSA, an in-lab sleep study should be performed.


References

1. Ryals S, Chiang A, Schutte-Rodin S, et al. Photoplethysmography -- new applications for an old technology: a sleep technology review. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(1):189-195.

2. Yalamanchali S, Farajian V, Hamilton C, Pott TR, Samuelson CG, Friedman M. Diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea by peripheral arterial tonometry: meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(12):1343-1350.

3. Röcken J, Schumann DM, Herrmann MJ, et al. Peripheral arterial tonometry versus polysomnography in suspected obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur J Med Res. 2023;28(1):251.

4. Iftikhar IH, Finch CE, Shah AS, Augunstein CA, Ioachimescu OC. A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance of peripheral arterial tonometry studies. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(4):1093-1102.

5. Ioachimescu OC, Allam JS, Samarghandi A, et al. Performance of peripheral arterial tonometry-based testing for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in a large sleep clinic cohort. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16(10):1663-1674.

6. Van Pee B, Massie F, Vits S, et al. A multicentric validation study of a novel home sleep apnea test based on peripheral arterial tonometry. Sleep. 2022;45(5).

7. Ioachimescu OC, Dholakia SA, Venkateshiah SB, et al. Improving the performance of peripheral arterial tonometry-based testing for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. J Investig Med. 2020;68(8):1370-1378.

8. Korkalainen H, Aakko J, Duce B, et al. Deep learning enables sleep staging from photoplethysmogram for patients with suspected sleep apnea. Sleep. 2020;43(11).
 

CHEST

CHEST

OSA is a very prevalent condition in the general population, but still many patients remain undiagnosed and untreated. Prolonged, untreated OSA is an independent risk factor for major cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Therefore, timely diagnosis and treatment are required.

Polysomnography (PSG) remains to this day the gold standard for diagnosing sleep apnea. A standard PSG (type I) is performed in a sleep laboratory in the presence of specialized sleep technicians and utilizes EEG, electrooculogram (EOG), and electromyogram (EMG) to determine sleep stages, oronasal thermal and pressure transducer sensors to monitor airflow, respiratory inductance plethysmography to record respiratory effort, EMG for limb movements, pulse oximetry (PulseOx), ECG, and video or body sensor devices to confirm body position. Rising rates of sleep testing have created demand for an alternative to cumbersome, costly, and resource-intensive in-lab PSGs. As such, home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) has emerged as a simpler, more accessible, and cost-effective alternative diagnostic tool.

In 2007, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) endorsed Portable Monitoring (PM) as an alternative to standard PSG, with the caveat that it should be used only in patients with a high pretest probability of sleep apnea, without respiratory or cardiovascular disorders and comorbid sleep disorders. All HSAT devices (type II-IV) are required to have a minimum of an oronasal thermal sensor/nasal pressure transducer, respiratory inductance plethysmography, and PulseOx. A major limitation of most HSAT devices is the lack of EEG, preventing detection of cortical arousals and wake time, forcing the use of total recording time as a surrogate for total sleep time.

Peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT)-based HSAT devices are unique in this respect, as their proprietary algorithms allow estimates of total sleep time by monitoring changes in peripheral vascular tone. Anyone who has seen a PAT-based HSAT may have noticed very different outputs from traditional HSATs.

PAT is based on the concept that airflow obstruction may lead to a surge in sympathetic tone, causing vasoconstriction and reduced blood volume in the peripheral vascular bed. A PAT-based device measures relative changes in blood volume and combines this information with actigraphy signals, PulseOx, and heart rate to diagnose the presence of respiratory events. Sleep apnea severity stratification is accomplished by the use of pAHI or pRDI (PAT-based apnea-hypopnea index and respiratory disturbance index, respectively).

PAT-based technology was first approved by the FDA in 2001 as a diagnostic tool for sleep apnea. The 2 best-known medical devices are WatchPAT^® and NightOwl^®, both of which have been FDA-approved and studied against PSG. To obtain an accurate and sustainable PAT signal, WatchPAT has a pneumo-optic finger probe designed to generate a uniform, subdiastolic pressure on the finger that minimizes venous blood pooling, prevents uncontrolled venous backflow, and effectively unloads the arterial wall tension without blocking digital arterial flow. NightOwl is a smaller device, with a single fingertip sensor that acquires actigraphy and PPG data to measure heart rate, Pulse Ox, and PAT.

The physiological basis of PAT relies on photoplethysmography (PPG), a noninvasive optical monitoring technique that generates a waveform, which ultimately correlates with the circulatory volume of the respective tissue.¹ The PPG technology relies on the fact that when a specific tissue is exposed to light signal of a specific wavelength, its absorbance by tissue fluctuates with arterial pulsations. Pulse oximetry represents the most used application of PPG. Recent advances in PPG signal analysis have fueled its use in clinical and consumer sleep technologies and allowed new capabilities, including capturing heart rate and rhythm, pulse rate variability, arterial stiffness, and even—with somewhat less accuracy—energy expenditure, maximum O2 consumption, and blood pressure. Combining actigraphy monitoring with PPG technology took both consumer and medical-grade sleep technologies further, allowing the estimation of parameters such as sleep stages, sleep times, and respiratory events. With myriad new sleep trackers claiming to assess total sleep time, wake time, light or deep sleep, and even respiratory events, the obvious clinical question is centered on their comparative accuracy, as well against more traditional PM and the gold standard PSG.

Numerous studies have evaluated the efficacy of PAT-based devices for diagnosing sleep apnea, with variable findings. Many have shown good correlations between mean AHI and pAHI. Others have highlighted significant discrepancies in the measurements between PSG and PAT, questioning the reliability of PAT-based devices in the diagnosis and severity stratification of OSA. One meta-analysis of 14 studies showed a high degree of correlation between pAHI and AHI.² Another study reported a concordance of 80% between PAT-based testing and consecutive PSG, with an increase to 86% at a higher AHI (>15/h).³ A subsequent meta-analysis showed that PAT was significantly less sensitive for diagnosing OSA than PSG, particularly for mild or moderate severity disease, emphasizing the need for further confirmation with PSG when faced with inconclusive or negative results.⁴ A large sleep clinic-based cohort study of 500 patients with OSA showed that WatchPAT devices misclassify OSA in a sizeable proportion of patients (30%-50%), leading to both over- and under-estimation of severity.⁵ Van Pee, et al, found that their PAT-based HSAT NightOwl performed better, using both the 3% and 4% hypopnea scoring rules and a novel near-border zone labeling.⁶

Some of the discordance in AHI between PAT and PSG appears to be related to age and sex. In our large sample comparing PAT to PSG, we found that using PAT-based data in concert with demographic (age, gender) and anthropometric (neck circumference, body mass index) variables improved the diagnostic accuracy of PAT-based testing.⁷ Another study concluded that manual scoring of WatchPAT automated results improved concordance with PSG, particularly in older participants and women. Several studies on WatchPAT recordings have demonstrated significant artifacts and inaccuracies in the PulseOx data. Although WatchPAT employs automated algorithms to remove erroneous data, a thorough visual inspection and manual correction of study data is still essential to derive accurate results.

Recent studies have found that PAT-based tests can also differentiate between central and obstructive respiratory events by using pulse signal upstroke variations caused by changes in intrathoracic pressure and respiratory/chest wall movement recorded by body position sensors, but large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings. Korkalainen, et al, recently employed a deep-learning model to perform sleep staging on the PPG PulseOx signals from nearly 900 PSGs in patients with suspected OSA.⁸ The deep learning approach enabled the differentiation of sleep stages and accurate estimation of the total sleep time. Going forward, this could easily enhance the diagnostic yield of PM recordings and enable cost-efficient, long-term monitoring of sleep.

Although PAT-based home sleep tests have emerged as a simple and convenient option for the evaluation of sleep apnea, several studies have highlighted their limited sensitivity as a screening tool for mild and moderate cases of sleep apnea. Furthermore, the scope of these tests remains limited, rendering them rather unsuitable for assessment of more complex sleep disorders like narcolepsy or restless leg syndrome. Therefore, when OSA is suspected, the PAT-based sleep study is a good screening tool, but negative tests should not preclude further investigation. Where a high probability of sleep apnea exists but PAT-based testing shows no or mild OSA, an in-lab sleep study should be performed.


References

1. Ryals S, Chiang A, Schutte-Rodin S, et al. Photoplethysmography -- new applications for an old technology: a sleep technology review. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(1):189-195.

2. Yalamanchali S, Farajian V, Hamilton C, Pott TR, Samuelson CG, Friedman M. Diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea by peripheral arterial tonometry: meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(12):1343-1350.

3. Röcken J, Schumann DM, Herrmann MJ, et al. Peripheral arterial tonometry versus polysomnography in suspected obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur J Med Res. 2023;28(1):251.

4. Iftikhar IH, Finch CE, Shah AS, Augunstein CA, Ioachimescu OC. A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance of peripheral arterial tonometry studies. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(4):1093-1102.

5. Ioachimescu OC, Allam JS, Samarghandi A, et al. Performance of peripheral arterial tonometry-based testing for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in a large sleep clinic cohort. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16(10):1663-1674.

6. Van Pee B, Massie F, Vits S, et al. A multicentric validation study of a novel home sleep apnea test based on peripheral arterial tonometry. Sleep. 2022;45(5).

7. Ioachimescu OC, Dholakia SA, Venkateshiah SB, et al. Improving the performance of peripheral arterial tonometry-based testing for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. J Investig Med. 2020;68(8):1370-1378.

8. Korkalainen H, Aakko J, Duce B, et al. Deep learning enables sleep staging from photoplethysmogram for patients with suspected sleep apnea. Sleep. 2020;43(11).
 

CHEST

CRITICAL CARE NETWORK

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Section

As critical care medicine continues to advance understanding of ICU survivorship, thoughtful selection of medications in the acute setting can potentially mitigate long-term cognitive, physical, and affective effects.

As of yet, no significant studies have linked opioid use in critical care to new diagnoses of opioid use disorder, but the opioid epidemic has taught us that profligate use of opioids can have devastating effects despite best intentions. Continuous infusions of full agonist opioids for sedation remain an important tool in management of sedation. For acute pain, buprenorphine represents an attractive alternative for patients who are both intubated and nonintubated. It provides equal pain relief as full agonist opioids while causing less respiratory depression, less delirium, less nausea, less constipation, less euphoria, and less misuse potential. Its unique partial mu-opioid agonism is responsible for the improved nausea, constipation, and respiratory depression, while the kappa and delta receptor antagonisms are responsible for antidepressant effects as well as lessened opioid craving, sedation, and dysphoria. Given the variety of doses and routes for buprenorphine, palliative medicine consults can help navigate preventing precipitated withdrawal in patients who are opioid-tolerant and the variety of available dosing and routes.

It is a testament to the growth of critical care medicine that we now have the privilege and responsibility to account for long-term sequelae of our lifesaving interventions, rather than the old model of “prevent death at all costs.” Continued integration of high-quality symptom management into critical care offers an opportunity to better balance life-prolonging treatment and optimize quality of life.

References

1. Neale KJ, Weimer MB, Davis MP, et al. Top ten tips palliative care clinicians should know about buprenorphine. J Palliat Med. 2023;26(1):120-130. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2022.0399
 

CHEST

CRITICAL CARE NETWORK

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Section

As critical care medicine continues to advance understanding of ICU survivorship, thoughtful selection of medications in the acute setting can potentially mitigate long-term cognitive, physical, and affective effects.

As of yet, no significant studies have linked opioid use in critical care to new diagnoses of opioid use disorder, but the opioid epidemic has taught us that profligate use of opioids can have devastating effects despite best intentions. Continuous infusions of full agonist opioids for sedation remain an important tool in management of sedation. For acute pain, buprenorphine represents an attractive alternative for patients who are both intubated and nonintubated. It provides equal pain relief as full agonist opioids while causing less respiratory depression, less delirium, less nausea, less constipation, less euphoria, and less misuse potential. Its unique partial mu-opioid agonism is responsible for the improved nausea, constipation, and respiratory depression, while the kappa and delta receptor antagonisms are responsible for antidepressant effects as well as lessened opioid craving, sedation, and dysphoria. Given the variety of doses and routes for buprenorphine, palliative medicine consults can help navigate preventing precipitated withdrawal in patients who are opioid-tolerant and the variety of available dosing and routes.

It is a testament to the growth of critical care medicine that we now have the privilege and responsibility to account for long-term sequelae of our lifesaving interventions, rather than the old model of “prevent death at all costs.” Continued integration of high-quality symptom management into critical care offers an opportunity to better balance life-prolonging treatment and optimize quality of life.

References

1. Neale KJ, Weimer MB, Davis MP, et al. Top ten tips palliative care clinicians should know about buprenorphine. J Palliat Med. 2023;26(1):120-130. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2022.0399
 

CHEST

CRITICAL CARE NETWORK

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Section

As critical care medicine continues to advance understanding of ICU survivorship, thoughtful selection of medications in the acute setting can potentially mitigate long-term cognitive, physical, and affective effects.

As of yet, no significant studies have linked opioid use in critical care to new diagnoses of opioid use disorder, but the opioid epidemic has taught us that profligate use of opioids can have devastating effects despite best intentions. Continuous infusions of full agonist opioids for sedation remain an important tool in management of sedation. For acute pain, buprenorphine represents an attractive alternative for patients who are both intubated and nonintubated. It provides equal pain relief as full agonist opioids while causing less respiratory depression, less delirium, less nausea, less constipation, less euphoria, and less misuse potential. Its unique partial mu-opioid agonism is responsible for the improved nausea, constipation, and respiratory depression, while the kappa and delta receptor antagonisms are responsible for antidepressant effects as well as lessened opioid craving, sedation, and dysphoria. Given the variety of doses and routes for buprenorphine, palliative medicine consults can help navigate preventing precipitated withdrawal in patients who are opioid-tolerant and the variety of available dosing and routes.

It is a testament to the growth of critical care medicine that we now have the privilege and responsibility to account for long-term sequelae of our lifesaving interventions, rather than the old model of “prevent death at all costs.” Continued integration of high-quality symptom management into critical care offers an opportunity to better balance life-prolonging treatment and optimize quality of life.

References

1. Neale KJ, Weimer MB, Davis MP, et al. Top ten tips palliative care clinicians should know about buprenorphine. J Palliat Med. 2023;26(1):120-130. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2022.0399
 

CHEST

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Lung Cancer Section

Since the American College of Radiology (ACR) updated its Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) to include atypical pulmonary cysts in 2022, there has been little discussion among chest physicians regarding the significance of pulmonary cysts and why these changes were made.

Lung-RADS 2022 defined atypical pulmonary cysts as single, unilocular cysts with a wall thickness greater than 2 mm or any multilocular cysts. These can be uniform, asymmetric, or have a focal nodularity. This change was prompted by data derived from multiple studies. First, a finding that 3.6% of lung cancers were associated with cysts at baseline.¹ This was followed by a reanalysis of the NELSON trial’s missed cancers showing 22% of those overlooked during initial screening had findings of cystic disease, reaffirming the significance of atypical pulmonary cysts.² Though the number is low, we now know 1.1% of all cancers present as an atypical cyst, with 4.7% of them being malignant.³
 

Based on these studies, cysts are a baseline Lung-RADS 4A—a finding that correlates to a higher risk and needs to be followed with a short-term CT scan in 3 months vs a PET. ACR does recommend reserving PET scans for wall thickness > 8 mm. If the repeat CT scan is stable, then the Lung-RADS designation is dropped to a 3 for follow-up.

References

1. Farooqi AO, Cham M, Zhang L, et al. Lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(4):781-786.

2. Scholten ET, Horeweg N, Koning HJ, et al. Computed tomographic characteristics of interval and post screen carcinomas in lung cancer screening. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(1):81-88.

3. Mascalchi M, Attinà D, Bertelli E, et al. Lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39(1):102-108.

CHEST

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Lung Cancer Section

Since the American College of Radiology (ACR) updated its Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) to include atypical pulmonary cysts in 2022, there has been little discussion among chest physicians regarding the significance of pulmonary cysts and why these changes were made.

Lung-RADS 2022 defined atypical pulmonary cysts as single, unilocular cysts with a wall thickness greater than 2 mm or any multilocular cysts. These can be uniform, asymmetric, or have a focal nodularity. This change was prompted by data derived from multiple studies. First, a finding that 3.6% of lung cancers were associated with cysts at baseline.¹ This was followed by a reanalysis of the NELSON trial’s missed cancers showing 22% of those overlooked during initial screening had findings of cystic disease, reaffirming the significance of atypical pulmonary cysts.² Though the number is low, we now know 1.1% of all cancers present as an atypical cyst, with 4.7% of them being malignant.³
 

Based on these studies, cysts are a baseline Lung-RADS 4A—a finding that correlates to a higher risk and needs to be followed with a short-term CT scan in 3 months vs a PET. ACR does recommend reserving PET scans for wall thickness > 8 mm. If the repeat CT scan is stable, then the Lung-RADS designation is dropped to a 3 for follow-up.

References

1. Farooqi AO, Cham M, Zhang L, et al. Lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(4):781-786.

2. Scholten ET, Horeweg N, Koning HJ, et al. Computed tomographic characteristics of interval and post screen carcinomas in lung cancer screening. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(1):81-88.

3. Mascalchi M, Attinà D, Bertelli E, et al. Lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39(1):102-108.

CHEST

THORACIC ONCOLOGY AND CHEST PROCEDURES NETWORK

Lung Cancer Section

Since the American College of Radiology (ACR) updated its Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) to include atypical pulmonary cysts in 2022, there has been little discussion among chest physicians regarding the significance of pulmonary cysts and why these changes were made.

Lung-RADS 2022 defined atypical pulmonary cysts as single, unilocular cysts with a wall thickness greater than 2 mm or any multilocular cysts. These can be uniform, asymmetric, or have a focal nodularity. This change was prompted by data derived from multiple studies. First, a finding that 3.6% of lung cancers were associated with cysts at baseline.¹ This was followed by a reanalysis of the NELSON trial’s missed cancers showing 22% of those overlooked during initial screening had findings of cystic disease, reaffirming the significance of atypical pulmonary cysts.² Though the number is low, we now know 1.1% of all cancers present as an atypical cyst, with 4.7% of them being malignant.³
 

Based on these studies, cysts are a baseline Lung-RADS 4A—a finding that correlates to a higher risk and needs to be followed with a short-term CT scan in 3 months vs a PET. ACR does recommend reserving PET scans for wall thickness > 8 mm. If the repeat CT scan is stable, then the Lung-RADS designation is dropped to a 3 for follow-up.

References

1. Farooqi AO, Cham M, Zhang L, et al. Lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(4):781-786.

2. Scholten ET, Horeweg N, Koning HJ, et al. Computed tomographic characteristics of interval and post screen carcinomas in lung cancer screening. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(1):81-88.

3. Mascalchi M, Attinà D, Bertelli E, et al. Lung cancer associated with cystic airspaces. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39(1):102-108.