CHEST Physician

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study found that use of e-cigarettes by parents was associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• AD is one of the most common inflammatory conditions in children and is linked to environmental risk factors, such as exposure to secondhand smoke and prenatal exposure to tobacco.
• To address the effect of e-cigarettes use on children, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative sample of the US population.
• The analysis included 48,637,111 individuals (mean age, 8.4 years), with 6,354,515 (13%) indicating a history of AD (mean age, 8 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% among individuals with AD, compared with 14.4% among those without AD.
• This corresponded to a 24% higher risk for AD associated with parental e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42).
• The association between e-cigarette use and AD in children held regardless of parent’s sex.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that parental e-cigarette use was associated with pediatric AD,” the authors concluded. They noted that the authors of a previous study that associated e-cigarette use with AD in adults postulated that the cause was “the inflammatory state created by” e-cigarettes.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Gun Min Youn, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional survey design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. Defining e-cigarette use as a single past instance could affect the strength of the findings. Only past-year e-cigarette use was considered. Furthermore, data on pediatric cigarette or e-cigarette use, a potential confounder, were unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose funding information. One author reported receiving consultation fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study found that use of e-cigarettes by parents was associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• AD is one of the most common inflammatory conditions in children and is linked to environmental risk factors, such as exposure to secondhand smoke and prenatal exposure to tobacco.
• To address the effect of e-cigarettes use on children, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative sample of the US population.
• The analysis included 48,637,111 individuals (mean age, 8.4 years), with 6,354,515 (13%) indicating a history of AD (mean age, 8 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% among individuals with AD, compared with 14.4% among those without AD.
• This corresponded to a 24% higher risk for AD associated with parental e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42).
• The association between e-cigarette use and AD in children held regardless of parent’s sex.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that parental e-cigarette use was associated with pediatric AD,” the authors concluded. They noted that the authors of a previous study that associated e-cigarette use with AD in adults postulated that the cause was “the inflammatory state created by” e-cigarettes.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Gun Min Youn, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional survey design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. Defining e-cigarette use as a single past instance could affect the strength of the findings. Only past-year e-cigarette use was considered. Furthermore, data on pediatric cigarette or e-cigarette use, a potential confounder, were unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose funding information. One author reported receiving consultation fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study found that use of e-cigarettes by parents was associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• AD is one of the most common inflammatory conditions in children and is linked to environmental risk factors, such as exposure to secondhand smoke and prenatal exposure to tobacco.
• To address the effect of e-cigarettes use on children, researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from the 2014-2018 National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative sample of the US population.
• The analysis included 48,637,111 individuals (mean age, 8.4 years), with 6,354,515 (13%) indicating a history of AD (mean age, 8 years).

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% among individuals with AD, compared with 14.4% among those without AD.
• This corresponded to a 24% higher risk for AD associated with parental e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42).
• The association between e-cigarette use and AD in children held regardless of parent’s sex.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that parental e-cigarette use was associated with pediatric AD,” the authors concluded. They noted that the authors of a previous study that associated e-cigarette use with AD in adults postulated that the cause was “the inflammatory state created by” e-cigarettes.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Gun Min Youn, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional survey design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. Defining e-cigarette use as a single past instance could affect the strength of the findings. Only past-year e-cigarette use was considered. Furthermore, data on pediatric cigarette or e-cigarette use, a potential confounder, were unavailable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose funding information. One author reported receiving consultation fees outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Healthier sleep is associated with lower odds of developing a wide range of gastrointestinal conditions, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research revealed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Due to the widespread prevalence of sleep issues and a growing burden of digestive diseases globally, researchers investigated the association between sleep quality and digestive disorders in a prospective cohort study of 410,586 people in the UK Biobank.
• Five individual sleep behaviors were assessed: sleep duration, insomnia, snoring, daytime sleepiness, and chronotype.
• A healthy sleep was defined as a morning chronotype, 7-8 hours of sleep duration, no self-reported snoring, never or rare insomnia, and a low frequency of daytime sleepiness, for a score of 5/5.
• The study investigators tracked the development of 16 digestive diseases over a mean period of 13.2 years.
• As well as looking at healthy sleep scores, researchers considered genetic susceptibility to gastrointestinal conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with a healthy sleep score had 28% lower odds of developing any digestive disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75) than those with a sleep score of 0/1.
• Of the 16 digestive diseases looked at, the reduction of risk was highest for irritable bowel syndrome at 50% (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.57).
• A healthy sleep score was also associated with 37% reduced odds for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.71), 35% lower chance for peptic ulcer (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.058-0.74), 34% reduced chance for dyspepsia (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75), and a 25% lower risk for diverticulosis (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80).
• High genetic risk and poor sleep scores were also associated with increased odds (53% to > 200%) of developing digestive diseases.
• However, healthy sleep reduced the risk for digestive diseases regardless of genetic susceptibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the potential holistic impact of different sleep behaviors in mitigating the risk of digestive diseases in clinical practice,” wrote Shiyi Yu, MD, of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

Poor sleep can also change our gut microbiome, Dr. Yu told this news organization. If you don’t sleep well, the repair of the gut lining cannot be finished during the night.

SOURCE:

The study was presented at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), 2024, annual meeting.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Yu had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Healthier sleep is associated with lower odds of developing a wide range of gastrointestinal conditions, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research revealed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Due to the widespread prevalence of sleep issues and a growing burden of digestive diseases globally, researchers investigated the association between sleep quality and digestive disorders in a prospective cohort study of 410,586 people in the UK Biobank.
• Five individual sleep behaviors were assessed: sleep duration, insomnia, snoring, daytime sleepiness, and chronotype.
• A healthy sleep was defined as a morning chronotype, 7-8 hours of sleep duration, no self-reported snoring, never or rare insomnia, and a low frequency of daytime sleepiness, for a score of 5/5.
• The study investigators tracked the development of 16 digestive diseases over a mean period of 13.2 years.
• As well as looking at healthy sleep scores, researchers considered genetic susceptibility to gastrointestinal conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with a healthy sleep score had 28% lower odds of developing any digestive disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75) than those with a sleep score of 0/1.
• Of the 16 digestive diseases looked at, the reduction of risk was highest for irritable bowel syndrome at 50% (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.57).
• A healthy sleep score was also associated with 37% reduced odds for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.71), 35% lower chance for peptic ulcer (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.058-0.74), 34% reduced chance for dyspepsia (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75), and a 25% lower risk for diverticulosis (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80).
• High genetic risk and poor sleep scores were also associated with increased odds (53% to > 200%) of developing digestive diseases.
• However, healthy sleep reduced the risk for digestive diseases regardless of genetic susceptibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the potential holistic impact of different sleep behaviors in mitigating the risk of digestive diseases in clinical practice,” wrote Shiyi Yu, MD, of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

Poor sleep can also change our gut microbiome, Dr. Yu told this news organization. If you don’t sleep well, the repair of the gut lining cannot be finished during the night.

SOURCE:

The study was presented at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), 2024, annual meeting.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Yu had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Healthier sleep is associated with lower odds of developing a wide range of gastrointestinal conditions, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research revealed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Due to the widespread prevalence of sleep issues and a growing burden of digestive diseases globally, researchers investigated the association between sleep quality and digestive disorders in a prospective cohort study of 410,586 people in the UK Biobank.
• Five individual sleep behaviors were assessed: sleep duration, insomnia, snoring, daytime sleepiness, and chronotype.
• A healthy sleep was defined as a morning chronotype, 7-8 hours of sleep duration, no self-reported snoring, never or rare insomnia, and a low frequency of daytime sleepiness, for a score of 5/5.
• The study investigators tracked the development of 16 digestive diseases over a mean period of 13.2 years.
• As well as looking at healthy sleep scores, researchers considered genetic susceptibility to gastrointestinal conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with a healthy sleep score had 28% lower odds of developing any digestive disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75) than those with a sleep score of 0/1.
• Of the 16 digestive diseases looked at, the reduction of risk was highest for irritable bowel syndrome at 50% (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.57).
• A healthy sleep score was also associated with 37% reduced odds for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.71), 35% lower chance for peptic ulcer (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.058-0.74), 34% reduced chance for dyspepsia (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75), and a 25% lower risk for diverticulosis (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80).
• High genetic risk and poor sleep scores were also associated with increased odds (53% to > 200%) of developing digestive diseases.
• However, healthy sleep reduced the risk for digestive diseases regardless of genetic susceptibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the potential holistic impact of different sleep behaviors in mitigating the risk of digestive diseases in clinical practice,” wrote Shiyi Yu, MD, of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

Poor sleep can also change our gut microbiome, Dr. Yu told this news organization. If you don’t sleep well, the repair of the gut lining cannot be finished during the night.

SOURCE:

The study was presented at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), 2024, annual meeting.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Yu had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Avoiding the use of antianaerobic antibiotics for empiric treatment of patients with sepsis can prevent depletion of beneficial bacteria in the gut microbiome and reduce both organ dysfunction and in-hospital mortality, a critical care specialists contends.

“You may not be personally moved by a 2- to 5-percent absolute difference in mortality, but sepsis is so common and so lethal that even small differences in outcomes can actually translate into enormous public health implications,” said Robert P. Dickson, MD a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

If instead of prescribing piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn; pip-tazo) for sepsis critical care specialists were to switch to cefepime “even if you make very conservative assumptions like a modest effect size, you’re still talking about [saving] thousands of lives a year,” he said in a scientific symposium at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

“This is why I say this isn’t really over the horizon; this is microbiome modulation that’s happening all the time,” he said.

Most patients with sepsis in a medical ICU with respiratory, urinary or bloodstream sources of infection do not have indications for antianaerobic antibiotics, and there are no head-to-head clinical trials demonstrating a benefit for one anti-sepsis antibiotic strategy over another he said.

“In contrast, every observational study between antianaerobic and non-antianaerobic shows benefits to the anaerobe-sparing [drugs], and it’s been shown with animal models too. So to my mind, it’s already practice changing. I need to be talked into giving antianaerobic antibiotics for septic patients” he said.
 

Targeting gut microbiota

There are three basic approaches to focusing on the gut microbiome as a therapeutic target. The hardest is attempting to engineer an ecosystem — a fiendishly complex task with unpredictable results that has never been shown to work in either the gut or in the ICU, Dr. Dickson said.

A second approach, the use of probiotics to repopulate the gut with beneficial bacteria, is largely futile in the ICU, as the large majority of patients are on antibiotics and can’t be safely weaned off of them while in critical care. In this situation, giving probiotics would be akin to try to repopulate a forest while a forest fire is raging, he said.

The third and easiest approach is to minimize dysbiosis — imbalance of organisms in the gut — in the first place.

Anaerobic bacteria in the gut have been shown in several different disease states and animals models to be protective against pneumonia, organ failure, and death.

To see whether antianaerobic antibiotics could increase risk for adverse outcomes in the ICU, Dr. Dickson and colleagues previously conducted a retrospective study of 3032 mechanically ventilated patients in their center who received antibiotics either with or without anaerobic coverage in the first 72 hours.

They found that patients treated with early antianaerobic antibiotics had decreased ventilator-associated pneumonia-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24), infection-free survival (HR 1.22), and overall survival (HR 1.14) compared with patients who received antibiotics without anaerobic cover (all comparisons statistically significant by confidence intervals).

In a subcohort of 116 patients for whom gut microbiota data compositions were available, those who received antianaerobic antibiotics had decreased initial gut bacterial density (P = .00038), increased microbiome expansion during hospitalization (P = .011), and domination of the microbiome by Enterobacteriaceae species (P = .045). They also found that Enterobacteriaceae were enriched among respiratory pathogens in antianaerobic treated patients, and that in murine models, treatment with antianaerobic antibiotics increased susceptibility to Enterobacteriaceae pneumonia and increased the risk of death from non-infectious injuries.
 

Pip-tazo vs. cefepime

In the ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial, results of which were reported by this news organization in November 2023, there were no differences in the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death in the first 14 days between piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime. Remarking on the results, lead investigator Edward T. Qian, MD, MSc from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said “I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection.”

But as Dr. Dickson’s group reported more recently in JAMA Internal Medicine, a 15-month pip-tazo shortage allowed the investigators to conduct a natural experiment comparing 90-day outcomes among 7569 patients with sepsis who received vancomycin plus either pip-tazo or cefepime.

They found in an instrumental variable analysis that piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with an absolute increase in mortality at 90 days of 5.0%, and that patients who received this antianaerobic antibiotic had 2.1 fewer organ failure–free days, 1.1 fewer ventilator-free days, and 1.5 fewer vasopressor-free days.

“Our study reveals the potential risks associated with empirical piperacillin-tazobactam in patients with sepsis without a specific indication for antianaerobic therapy. These findings should prompt reconsideration and further study of the widespread use of empirical antianaerobic antibiotics in sepsis,” the investigators concluded.
 

Who gets what?

In the question-and-answer at the end of the session, comoderator Christina Sarah Thornton, MD, PhD, FRCPC from the University of Calgary, Alberta, asked Dr. Dickson whether the question of antianaerobic overuse in the ICU “is a function that we aren’t able yet from a diagnostic perspective to identify the group that may need antianaerobes? Because we often don’t get culture data back in time for a critically ill patient. Do you think there could maybe be a more rapid diagnostic for these patients?”

He replied that “a lot of our problems would be solved if we had really good, reliable rapid diagnostics for infection,” but noted that most of the patients in the study mentioned above did not have indications for antianaerobics.

Asked by this reporter whether Dr. Dickson’s presentation changed her mind about the use of piperacillin-tazobactam in her patients, Dr. Thornton replied “Yes! It did for me.”

She noted that although in Canada respirologists don’t work in intensive care units, “it makes me wonder about just giving pip-tazo to patients that are really sick. It definitely changed my mind.”

The work of Dr. Dickson and colleagues is supported by National Institute of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grants. He reported no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Thornton had no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Avoiding the use of antianaerobic antibiotics for empiric treatment of patients with sepsis can prevent depletion of beneficial bacteria in the gut microbiome and reduce both organ dysfunction and in-hospital mortality, a critical care specialists contends.

“You may not be personally moved by a 2- to 5-percent absolute difference in mortality, but sepsis is so common and so lethal that even small differences in outcomes can actually translate into enormous public health implications,” said Robert P. Dickson, MD a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

If instead of prescribing piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn; pip-tazo) for sepsis critical care specialists were to switch to cefepime “even if you make very conservative assumptions like a modest effect size, you’re still talking about [saving] thousands of lives a year,” he said in a scientific symposium at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

“This is why I say this isn’t really over the horizon; this is microbiome modulation that’s happening all the time,” he said.

Most patients with sepsis in a medical ICU with respiratory, urinary or bloodstream sources of infection do not have indications for antianaerobic antibiotics, and there are no head-to-head clinical trials demonstrating a benefit for one anti-sepsis antibiotic strategy over another he said.

“In contrast, every observational study between antianaerobic and non-antianaerobic shows benefits to the anaerobe-sparing [drugs], and it’s been shown with animal models too. So to my mind, it’s already practice changing. I need to be talked into giving antianaerobic antibiotics for septic patients” he said.
 

Targeting gut microbiota

There are three basic approaches to focusing on the gut microbiome as a therapeutic target. The hardest is attempting to engineer an ecosystem — a fiendishly complex task with unpredictable results that has never been shown to work in either the gut or in the ICU, Dr. Dickson said.

A second approach, the use of probiotics to repopulate the gut with beneficial bacteria, is largely futile in the ICU, as the large majority of patients are on antibiotics and can’t be safely weaned off of them while in critical care. In this situation, giving probiotics would be akin to try to repopulate a forest while a forest fire is raging, he said.

The third and easiest approach is to minimize dysbiosis — imbalance of organisms in the gut — in the first place.

Anaerobic bacteria in the gut have been shown in several different disease states and animals models to be protective against pneumonia, organ failure, and death.

To see whether antianaerobic antibiotics could increase risk for adverse outcomes in the ICU, Dr. Dickson and colleagues previously conducted a retrospective study of 3032 mechanically ventilated patients in their center who received antibiotics either with or without anaerobic coverage in the first 72 hours.

They found that patients treated with early antianaerobic antibiotics had decreased ventilator-associated pneumonia-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24), infection-free survival (HR 1.22), and overall survival (HR 1.14) compared with patients who received antibiotics without anaerobic cover (all comparisons statistically significant by confidence intervals).

In a subcohort of 116 patients for whom gut microbiota data compositions were available, those who received antianaerobic antibiotics had decreased initial gut bacterial density (P = .00038), increased microbiome expansion during hospitalization (P = .011), and domination of the microbiome by Enterobacteriaceae species (P = .045). They also found that Enterobacteriaceae were enriched among respiratory pathogens in antianaerobic treated patients, and that in murine models, treatment with antianaerobic antibiotics increased susceptibility to Enterobacteriaceae pneumonia and increased the risk of death from non-infectious injuries.
 

Pip-tazo vs. cefepime

In the ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial, results of which were reported by this news organization in November 2023, there were no differences in the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death in the first 14 days between piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime. Remarking on the results, lead investigator Edward T. Qian, MD, MSc from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said “I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection.”

But as Dr. Dickson’s group reported more recently in JAMA Internal Medicine, a 15-month pip-tazo shortage allowed the investigators to conduct a natural experiment comparing 90-day outcomes among 7569 patients with sepsis who received vancomycin plus either pip-tazo or cefepime.

They found in an instrumental variable analysis that piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with an absolute increase in mortality at 90 days of 5.0%, and that patients who received this antianaerobic antibiotic had 2.1 fewer organ failure–free days, 1.1 fewer ventilator-free days, and 1.5 fewer vasopressor-free days.

“Our study reveals the potential risks associated with empirical piperacillin-tazobactam in patients with sepsis without a specific indication for antianaerobic therapy. These findings should prompt reconsideration and further study of the widespread use of empirical antianaerobic antibiotics in sepsis,” the investigators concluded.
 

Who gets what?

In the question-and-answer at the end of the session, comoderator Christina Sarah Thornton, MD, PhD, FRCPC from the University of Calgary, Alberta, asked Dr. Dickson whether the question of antianaerobic overuse in the ICU “is a function that we aren’t able yet from a diagnostic perspective to identify the group that may need antianaerobes? Because we often don’t get culture data back in time for a critically ill patient. Do you think there could maybe be a more rapid diagnostic for these patients?”

He replied that “a lot of our problems would be solved if we had really good, reliable rapid diagnostics for infection,” but noted that most of the patients in the study mentioned above did not have indications for antianaerobics.

Asked by this reporter whether Dr. Dickson’s presentation changed her mind about the use of piperacillin-tazobactam in her patients, Dr. Thornton replied “Yes! It did for me.”

She noted that although in Canada respirologists don’t work in intensive care units, “it makes me wonder about just giving pip-tazo to patients that are really sick. It definitely changed my mind.”

The work of Dr. Dickson and colleagues is supported by National Institute of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grants. He reported no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Thornton had no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Avoiding the use of antianaerobic antibiotics for empiric treatment of patients with sepsis can prevent depletion of beneficial bacteria in the gut microbiome and reduce both organ dysfunction and in-hospital mortality, a critical care specialists contends.

“You may not be personally moved by a 2- to 5-percent absolute difference in mortality, but sepsis is so common and so lethal that even small differences in outcomes can actually translate into enormous public health implications,” said Robert P. Dickson, MD a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

If instead of prescribing piperacillin-tazobactam (Zosyn; pip-tazo) for sepsis critical care specialists were to switch to cefepime “even if you make very conservative assumptions like a modest effect size, you’re still talking about [saving] thousands of lives a year,” he said in a scientific symposium at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

“This is why I say this isn’t really over the horizon; this is microbiome modulation that’s happening all the time,” he said.

Most patients with sepsis in a medical ICU with respiratory, urinary or bloodstream sources of infection do not have indications for antianaerobic antibiotics, and there are no head-to-head clinical trials demonstrating a benefit for one anti-sepsis antibiotic strategy over another he said.

“In contrast, every observational study between antianaerobic and non-antianaerobic shows benefits to the anaerobe-sparing [drugs], and it’s been shown with animal models too. So to my mind, it’s already practice changing. I need to be talked into giving antianaerobic antibiotics for septic patients” he said.
 

Targeting gut microbiota

There are three basic approaches to focusing on the gut microbiome as a therapeutic target. The hardest is attempting to engineer an ecosystem — a fiendishly complex task with unpredictable results that has never been shown to work in either the gut or in the ICU, Dr. Dickson said.

A second approach, the use of probiotics to repopulate the gut with beneficial bacteria, is largely futile in the ICU, as the large majority of patients are on antibiotics and can’t be safely weaned off of them while in critical care. In this situation, giving probiotics would be akin to try to repopulate a forest while a forest fire is raging, he said.

The third and easiest approach is to minimize dysbiosis — imbalance of organisms in the gut — in the first place.

Anaerobic bacteria in the gut have been shown in several different disease states and animals models to be protective against pneumonia, organ failure, and death.

To see whether antianaerobic antibiotics could increase risk for adverse outcomes in the ICU, Dr. Dickson and colleagues previously conducted a retrospective study of 3032 mechanically ventilated patients in their center who received antibiotics either with or without anaerobic coverage in the first 72 hours.

They found that patients treated with early antianaerobic antibiotics had decreased ventilator-associated pneumonia-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.24), infection-free survival (HR 1.22), and overall survival (HR 1.14) compared with patients who received antibiotics without anaerobic cover (all comparisons statistically significant by confidence intervals).

In a subcohort of 116 patients for whom gut microbiota data compositions were available, those who received antianaerobic antibiotics had decreased initial gut bacterial density (P = .00038), increased microbiome expansion during hospitalization (P = .011), and domination of the microbiome by Enterobacteriaceae species (P = .045). They also found that Enterobacteriaceae were enriched among respiratory pathogens in antianaerobic treated patients, and that in murine models, treatment with antianaerobic antibiotics increased susceptibility to Enterobacteriaceae pneumonia and increased the risk of death from non-infectious injuries.
 

Pip-tazo vs. cefepime

In the ACORN (Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes) trial, results of which were reported by this news organization in November 2023, there were no differences in the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death in the first 14 days between piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepime. Remarking on the results, lead investigator Edward T. Qian, MD, MSc from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said “I think the big takeaway is that you should feel comfortable starting or using pip-tazo for your patients who are coming into the hospital and receiving empiric antibiotics for acute infection.”

But as Dr. Dickson’s group reported more recently in JAMA Internal Medicine, a 15-month pip-tazo shortage allowed the investigators to conduct a natural experiment comparing 90-day outcomes among 7569 patients with sepsis who received vancomycin plus either pip-tazo or cefepime.

They found in an instrumental variable analysis that piperacillin-tazobactam was associated with an absolute increase in mortality at 90 days of 5.0%, and that patients who received this antianaerobic antibiotic had 2.1 fewer organ failure–free days, 1.1 fewer ventilator-free days, and 1.5 fewer vasopressor-free days.

“Our study reveals the potential risks associated with empirical piperacillin-tazobactam in patients with sepsis without a specific indication for antianaerobic therapy. These findings should prompt reconsideration and further study of the widespread use of empirical antianaerobic antibiotics in sepsis,” the investigators concluded.
 

Who gets what?

In the question-and-answer at the end of the session, comoderator Christina Sarah Thornton, MD, PhD, FRCPC from the University of Calgary, Alberta, asked Dr. Dickson whether the question of antianaerobic overuse in the ICU “is a function that we aren’t able yet from a diagnostic perspective to identify the group that may need antianaerobes? Because we often don’t get culture data back in time for a critically ill patient. Do you think there could maybe be a more rapid diagnostic for these patients?”

He replied that “a lot of our problems would be solved if we had really good, reliable rapid diagnostics for infection,” but noted that most of the patients in the study mentioned above did not have indications for antianaerobics.

Asked by this reporter whether Dr. Dickson’s presentation changed her mind about the use of piperacillin-tazobactam in her patients, Dr. Thornton replied “Yes! It did for me.”

She noted that although in Canada respirologists don’t work in intensive care units, “it makes me wonder about just giving pip-tazo to patients that are really sick. It definitely changed my mind.”

The work of Dr. Dickson and colleagues is supported by National Institute of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grants. He reported no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Thornton had no relevant disclosures.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) can effectively evaluate a high-risk population for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and airflow obstruction, based on data from a new study of approximately 2000 individuals.

Previous research suggests that approximately 70%-90% of individuals with COPD are undiagnosed, especially low-income and minority populations who may be less likely to undergo screening, said Michaela A. Seigo, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference.

Although the current guidance from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against universal COPD screening in asymptomatic adults, the use of LDCT may be an option for evaluating a high-risk population, the researchers noted.

The researchers reviewed data from 2083 adults enrolled in the Temple Healthy Chest Initiative, an urban health system-wide lung cancer screening program, combined with the detection of symptoms and comorbidities.
 

Baseline LDCT for Identification of Comorbidities

Study participants underwent baseline LDCT between October 2021 and October 2022. The images were reviewed by radiologists for pulmonary comorbidities including emphysema, airway disease, bronchiectasis, and interstitial lung disease. In addition, 604 participants (29%) completed a symptom survey, and 624 (30%) underwent spirometry. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years and 63.9 years for those with and without a history of COPD, respectively.

Approximately half of the participants in both groups were female.

Overall, 66 of 181 (36.5%) individuals previously undiagnosed with COPD had spirometry consistent with airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity, < 70%). Individuals with previously undiagnosed COPD were more likely to be younger, male, current smokers, and identified as Hispanic or other race (not Black, White, Hispanic, or Asian/Native American/Pacific Islander).

Individuals without a reported history of COPD had fewer pulmonary comorbidities on LDCT and lower rates of respiratory symptoms than those with COPD. However, nearly 25% of individuals with no reported history of COPD said that breathing issues affected their “ability to do things,” Ms. Seigo said, and a majority of those with no COPD diagnosis exhibited airway disease (76.2% compared with 84% of diagnosed patients with COPD). In addition, 88.1% reported ever experiencing dyspnea and 72.6% reported experiencing cough; both symptoms are compatible with a clinical diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“We detected pulmonary comorbidities at higher rates than previously published,” Ms. Seigo said in an interview. The increase likely reflects the patient population at Temple, which includes a relatively high percentage of city-dwelling, lower-income individuals, as well as more racial-ethnic minorities and persons of color, she said.

However, “these findings will help clinicians target the most at-risk populations for previously undiagnosed COPD,” Ms. Seigo said.

Looking ahead, Ms. Seigo said she sees a dominant role for artificial intelligence (AI) in COPD screening. “At-risk populations will get LDCT scans, and AI will identify pulmonary and extra-pulmonary comorbidities that may need to be addressed,” she said.

A combination of symptom detection plus strategic and more widely available access to screening offers “a huge opportunity to intervene earlier and potentially save lives,” she told this news organization.
 

Lung Cancer Screening May Promote Earlier COPD Intervention

The current study examines the prevalence of undiagnosed COPD, especially among low-income and minority populations, in an asymptomatic high-risk group. “By integrating lung cancer CT screening with the detection of pulmonary comorbidities on LDCT and respiratory symptoms, the current study aimed to identify individuals with undiagnosed COPD,” said Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an interview.

“The study highlighted the feasibility and potential benefits of coupling lung cancer screening tests with COPD detection, which is noteworthy, and hits two targets with one arrow — early detection of lung cancer and COPD — in high-risk groups, Dr. Narendra said.

“Although the USPSTF recommends against screening for COPD in asymptomatic patients, abnormal pulmonary comorbidities observed on CT chest scans could serve as a gateway for clinicians to screen for COPD,” said Dr. Narendra. “This approach allows for early diagnosis, education on smoking cessation, and timely treatment of COPD, potentially preventing lung function deterioration and reducing the risk of exacerbations,” she noted.

The finding that one third of previously undiagnosed and asymptomatic patients with COPD showed significant rates of airflow obstruction on spirometry is consistent with previous research, Dr. Narendra told this news organization.

“Interestingly, in questions about specific symptoms, undiagnosed COPD patients reported higher rates of dyspnea, more cough, and breathing difficulties affecting their daily activities, at 16.1%, 27.4%, and 24.5%, respectively, highlighting a lower perception of symptoms,” she said.

“Barriers to lung cancer screening in urban, high-risk communities include limited healthcare facility access, insufficient awareness of screening programs, financial constraints, and cultural or language barriers,” said Dr. Narendra.

Potential strategies to overcome these barriers include improving access through additional screening centers and providing transportation, implementing community-based education and outreach programs to increase awareness about the benefits of lung cancer screening and early COPD detection, and providing financial assistance in the form of free screening options and collaboration with insurers to cover screening expenses, she said.

“Healthcare providers must recognize the dual benefits of lung cancer screening programs, including the opportunity to screen for undiagnosed COPD,” Dr. Narendra emphasized. “This integrated approach is crucial in identifying high-risk individuals who could benefit from early intervention and effective management of COPD. Clinicians should actively support implementing comprehensive screening programs incorporating assessments for pulmonary comorbidities through LDCT and screening questionnaires for COPD symptoms,” she said.

“Further research is needed to evaluate long-term mortality outcomes and identify best practices to determine the most effective methods and cost-effectiveness for implementing and sustaining combined screening programs in various urban settings,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization.

Other areas to address in future studies include investigating specific barriers to screening among different high-risk groups and tailoring interventions to improve screening uptake and adherence, Narendra said. “By addressing these research gaps, health care providers can optimize screening programs and enhance the overall health of urban, high-risk populations,” she added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Narendra serves on the editorial board of CHEST Physician.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) can effectively evaluate a high-risk population for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and airflow obstruction, based on data from a new study of approximately 2000 individuals.

Previous research suggests that approximately 70%-90% of individuals with COPD are undiagnosed, especially low-income and minority populations who may be less likely to undergo screening, said Michaela A. Seigo, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference.

Although the current guidance from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against universal COPD screening in asymptomatic adults, the use of LDCT may be an option for evaluating a high-risk population, the researchers noted.

The researchers reviewed data from 2083 adults enrolled in the Temple Healthy Chest Initiative, an urban health system-wide lung cancer screening program, combined with the detection of symptoms and comorbidities.
 

Baseline LDCT for Identification of Comorbidities

Study participants underwent baseline LDCT between October 2021 and October 2022. The images were reviewed by radiologists for pulmonary comorbidities including emphysema, airway disease, bronchiectasis, and interstitial lung disease. In addition, 604 participants (29%) completed a symptom survey, and 624 (30%) underwent spirometry. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years and 63.9 years for those with and without a history of COPD, respectively.

Approximately half of the participants in both groups were female.

Overall, 66 of 181 (36.5%) individuals previously undiagnosed with COPD had spirometry consistent with airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity, < 70%). Individuals with previously undiagnosed COPD were more likely to be younger, male, current smokers, and identified as Hispanic or other race (not Black, White, Hispanic, or Asian/Native American/Pacific Islander).

Individuals without a reported history of COPD had fewer pulmonary comorbidities on LDCT and lower rates of respiratory symptoms than those with COPD. However, nearly 25% of individuals with no reported history of COPD said that breathing issues affected their “ability to do things,” Ms. Seigo said, and a majority of those with no COPD diagnosis exhibited airway disease (76.2% compared with 84% of diagnosed patients with COPD). In addition, 88.1% reported ever experiencing dyspnea and 72.6% reported experiencing cough; both symptoms are compatible with a clinical diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“We detected pulmonary comorbidities at higher rates than previously published,” Ms. Seigo said in an interview. The increase likely reflects the patient population at Temple, which includes a relatively high percentage of city-dwelling, lower-income individuals, as well as more racial-ethnic minorities and persons of color, she said.

However, “these findings will help clinicians target the most at-risk populations for previously undiagnosed COPD,” Ms. Seigo said.

Looking ahead, Ms. Seigo said she sees a dominant role for artificial intelligence (AI) in COPD screening. “At-risk populations will get LDCT scans, and AI will identify pulmonary and extra-pulmonary comorbidities that may need to be addressed,” she said.

A combination of symptom detection plus strategic and more widely available access to screening offers “a huge opportunity to intervene earlier and potentially save lives,” she told this news organization.
 

Lung Cancer Screening May Promote Earlier COPD Intervention

The current study examines the prevalence of undiagnosed COPD, especially among low-income and minority populations, in an asymptomatic high-risk group. “By integrating lung cancer CT screening with the detection of pulmonary comorbidities on LDCT and respiratory symptoms, the current study aimed to identify individuals with undiagnosed COPD,” said Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an interview.

“The study highlighted the feasibility and potential benefits of coupling lung cancer screening tests with COPD detection, which is noteworthy, and hits two targets with one arrow — early detection of lung cancer and COPD — in high-risk groups, Dr. Narendra said.

“Although the USPSTF recommends against screening for COPD in asymptomatic patients, abnormal pulmonary comorbidities observed on CT chest scans could serve as a gateway for clinicians to screen for COPD,” said Dr. Narendra. “This approach allows for early diagnosis, education on smoking cessation, and timely treatment of COPD, potentially preventing lung function deterioration and reducing the risk of exacerbations,” she noted.

The finding that one third of previously undiagnosed and asymptomatic patients with COPD showed significant rates of airflow obstruction on spirometry is consistent with previous research, Dr. Narendra told this news organization.

“Interestingly, in questions about specific symptoms, undiagnosed COPD patients reported higher rates of dyspnea, more cough, and breathing difficulties affecting their daily activities, at 16.1%, 27.4%, and 24.5%, respectively, highlighting a lower perception of symptoms,” she said.

“Barriers to lung cancer screening in urban, high-risk communities include limited healthcare facility access, insufficient awareness of screening programs, financial constraints, and cultural or language barriers,” said Dr. Narendra.

Potential strategies to overcome these barriers include improving access through additional screening centers and providing transportation, implementing community-based education and outreach programs to increase awareness about the benefits of lung cancer screening and early COPD detection, and providing financial assistance in the form of free screening options and collaboration with insurers to cover screening expenses, she said.

“Healthcare providers must recognize the dual benefits of lung cancer screening programs, including the opportunity to screen for undiagnosed COPD,” Dr. Narendra emphasized. “This integrated approach is crucial in identifying high-risk individuals who could benefit from early intervention and effective management of COPD. Clinicians should actively support implementing comprehensive screening programs incorporating assessments for pulmonary comorbidities through LDCT and screening questionnaires for COPD symptoms,” she said.

“Further research is needed to evaluate long-term mortality outcomes and identify best practices to determine the most effective methods and cost-effectiveness for implementing and sustaining combined screening programs in various urban settings,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization.

Other areas to address in future studies include investigating specific barriers to screening among different high-risk groups and tailoring interventions to improve screening uptake and adherence, Narendra said. “By addressing these research gaps, health care providers can optimize screening programs and enhance the overall health of urban, high-risk populations,” she added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Narendra serves on the editorial board of CHEST Physician.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) can effectively evaluate a high-risk population for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and airflow obstruction, based on data from a new study of approximately 2000 individuals.

Previous research suggests that approximately 70%-90% of individuals with COPD are undiagnosed, especially low-income and minority populations who may be less likely to undergo screening, said Michaela A. Seigo, DO, of Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, in a study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2024 International Conference.

Although the current guidance from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against universal COPD screening in asymptomatic adults, the use of LDCT may be an option for evaluating a high-risk population, the researchers noted.

The researchers reviewed data from 2083 adults enrolled in the Temple Healthy Chest Initiative, an urban health system-wide lung cancer screening program, combined with the detection of symptoms and comorbidities.
 

Baseline LDCT for Identification of Comorbidities

Study participants underwent baseline LDCT between October 2021 and October 2022. The images were reviewed by radiologists for pulmonary comorbidities including emphysema, airway disease, bronchiectasis, and interstitial lung disease. In addition, 604 participants (29%) completed a symptom survey, and 624 (30%) underwent spirometry. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years and 63.9 years for those with and without a history of COPD, respectively.

Approximately half of the participants in both groups were female.

Overall, 66 of 181 (36.5%) individuals previously undiagnosed with COPD had spirometry consistent with airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity, < 70%). Individuals with previously undiagnosed COPD were more likely to be younger, male, current smokers, and identified as Hispanic or other race (not Black, White, Hispanic, or Asian/Native American/Pacific Islander).

Individuals without a reported history of COPD had fewer pulmonary comorbidities on LDCT and lower rates of respiratory symptoms than those with COPD. However, nearly 25% of individuals with no reported history of COPD said that breathing issues affected their “ability to do things,” Ms. Seigo said, and a majority of those with no COPD diagnosis exhibited airway disease (76.2% compared with 84% of diagnosed patients with COPD). In addition, 88.1% reported ever experiencing dyspnea and 72.6% reported experiencing cough; both symptoms are compatible with a clinical diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“We detected pulmonary comorbidities at higher rates than previously published,” Ms. Seigo said in an interview. The increase likely reflects the patient population at Temple, which includes a relatively high percentage of city-dwelling, lower-income individuals, as well as more racial-ethnic minorities and persons of color, she said.

However, “these findings will help clinicians target the most at-risk populations for previously undiagnosed COPD,” Ms. Seigo said.

Looking ahead, Ms. Seigo said she sees a dominant role for artificial intelligence (AI) in COPD screening. “At-risk populations will get LDCT scans, and AI will identify pulmonary and extra-pulmonary comorbidities that may need to be addressed,” she said.

A combination of symptom detection plus strategic and more widely available access to screening offers “a huge opportunity to intervene earlier and potentially save lives,” she told this news organization.
 

Lung Cancer Screening May Promote Earlier COPD Intervention

The current study examines the prevalence of undiagnosed COPD, especially among low-income and minority populations, in an asymptomatic high-risk group. “By integrating lung cancer CT screening with the detection of pulmonary comorbidities on LDCT and respiratory symptoms, the current study aimed to identify individuals with undiagnosed COPD,” said Dharani K. Narendra, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, in an interview.

“The study highlighted the feasibility and potential benefits of coupling lung cancer screening tests with COPD detection, which is noteworthy, and hits two targets with one arrow — early detection of lung cancer and COPD — in high-risk groups, Dr. Narendra said.

“Although the USPSTF recommends against screening for COPD in asymptomatic patients, abnormal pulmonary comorbidities observed on CT chest scans could serve as a gateway for clinicians to screen for COPD,” said Dr. Narendra. “This approach allows for early diagnosis, education on smoking cessation, and timely treatment of COPD, potentially preventing lung function deterioration and reducing the risk of exacerbations,” she noted.

The finding that one third of previously undiagnosed and asymptomatic patients with COPD showed significant rates of airflow obstruction on spirometry is consistent with previous research, Dr. Narendra told this news organization.

“Interestingly, in questions about specific symptoms, undiagnosed COPD patients reported higher rates of dyspnea, more cough, and breathing difficulties affecting their daily activities, at 16.1%, 27.4%, and 24.5%, respectively, highlighting a lower perception of symptoms,” she said.

“Barriers to lung cancer screening in urban, high-risk communities include limited healthcare facility access, insufficient awareness of screening programs, financial constraints, and cultural or language barriers,” said Dr. Narendra.

Potential strategies to overcome these barriers include improving access through additional screening centers and providing transportation, implementing community-based education and outreach programs to increase awareness about the benefits of lung cancer screening and early COPD detection, and providing financial assistance in the form of free screening options and collaboration with insurers to cover screening expenses, she said.

“Healthcare providers must recognize the dual benefits of lung cancer screening programs, including the opportunity to screen for undiagnosed COPD,” Dr. Narendra emphasized. “This integrated approach is crucial in identifying high-risk individuals who could benefit from early intervention and effective management of COPD. Clinicians should actively support implementing comprehensive screening programs incorporating assessments for pulmonary comorbidities through LDCT and screening questionnaires for COPD symptoms,” she said.

“Further research is needed to evaluate long-term mortality outcomes and identify best practices to determine the most effective methods and cost-effectiveness for implementing and sustaining combined screening programs in various urban settings,” Dr. Narendra told this news organization.

Other areas to address in future studies include investigating specific barriers to screening among different high-risk groups and tailoring interventions to improve screening uptake and adherence, Narendra said. “By addressing these research gaps, health care providers can optimize screening programs and enhance the overall health of urban, high-risk populations,” she added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Narendra serves on the editorial board of CHEST Physician.

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

SAN DIEGO – No matter where on earth you live, there’s likely to be an eye in the sky hovering overhead, and that’s a good thing, at least when it comes to satellite monitoring of air quality, said scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

In a special symposium held at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, NASA health and air quality specialists described the use of space-based systems and earth science applications to improve understanding of respiratory health risks worldwide, and to help enrich pulmonary research with galaxies of data.

“Every day we download over 25 terabytes of data,” said John Haynes, MS, program manager for Health and Air Quality Applications in the Earth Action Program of the NASA Earth Science Division in Washington.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Many of the observation data sets are critical for healthy air quality applications: observation of land surface temperature, sea surface temperature, precipitation, fires and thermal anomalies, aerosols, just to name a few, and the really awesome news is this offering from our constellation of satellites is free and open access, available to everyone across the globe,” he said.

The mission of NASA’s Earth Action Program is “to enable people and organizations to apply insights from Earth science to benefit the economy, health, quality of life, and environment.”

Program staff work with both industry and nonprofit environmental advocacy and health groups to help inform their decisions and actions with Earth science information.

NASA supports the use of Earth observations to help monitor and manage infectious diseases and environmental health, toxins and pathogens that affect health, air quality standards, and to assess the effects of climate change on air quality and public health.

Mr. Haynes noted that worldwide, six major cities have incorporated NASA data on fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) into their climate action plans. These cities include Accra, Ghana; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Guadalajara, Mexico; Lima, Peru; and Johannesburg, South Africa.
 

Monitoring pollution with TEMPO

There are more than 30 Earth-monitoring systems currently in orbit or soon to be launched, including NASA’s Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution (TEMPO), launched in April 2023, with first operations in August 2023. The instrument is in a geostationary orbit about 22,236 miles above the equator at longitudes that allow it to survey virtually all of North America — from coast to coast, and from southern Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas to Northern Canada.

TEMPO is part of a geostationary air quality satellite “constellation” or group that provides daylight observation over the entire Northern Hemisphere, explained Aaron Naeger, PhD, MS, mission applications lead for TEMPO at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Until TEMPO, space-based instruments had relatively low spatial resolution and could only capture one image each day. In contrast, TEMPO can scan east-west each daylight hour across its entire coverage area (known as the Field of Regard), and even more frequently during early morning and late afternoon. This allows researchers to measure volumes of pollution, sources, and how these pollution levels vary over time. The system measures ozone levels, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂,) formaldehyde, and aerosols.

More than 100 federal, state, local and tribal air quality agencies use the data captured by TEMPO to inform public health efforts.

Dr. Naeger gave examples of how the system can help identify public health hazards, including scans that showed high NO₂ levels from cities, traffic corridors, power plants, oil and gas fields, and fires.

Similarly, the system detected unhealthy ozone and PM2.5 levels during prescribed burns in April 2024, as well as notable differences between weekdays and weekends in NO₂ concentrations across California and the Front Range in Colorado. These showed higher levels along traffic corridors during weekdays related to increased traffic volumes and tailpipe emissions.
 

Fire and heat

Other NASA health and air quality initiatives include the FireAQ project, based at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, which provides free online weekly briefings on fire-related air quality concerns using data from TEMPO and other NASA satellite systems. The FireAQ project was described by Jun Wang, PhD, from the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

NASA also fosters collaborations to reduce health disparities in air quality and respiratory health in urban heat islands and other areas affected by extreme temperatures due to climate change, as discussed by Christopher K. Uejio, PhD, from Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Air pollution expert George D. Thurston, ScD, professor of medicine and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who attended the session, said that the PM2.5 standard includes nontoxic particulate matter, such as soil, and misses sub-micron sized particles, and asked Mr. Haynes whether smaller particles were being measured in the studies he described.

Mr. Haynes replied that the systems do not directly measure PM2.5 but instead rely on aerosol optical depth, a measure of the extent to which atmospheric particles absorb or scatter sunlight.

Dr. Thurston, who in 1987 was coauthor of groundbreaking study showing the link between PM2.5 levels and mortality, is now an advocate for a tougher standard of measuring ambient ultrafine particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than .1 microns in size (PM1).

NASA health and climate data are available at https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/.

Mr. Haynes and Dr. Naeger are NASA employees. Dr. Thurston had no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – No matter where on earth you live, there’s likely to be an eye in the sky hovering overhead, and that’s a good thing, at least when it comes to satellite monitoring of air quality, said scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

In a special symposium held at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, NASA health and air quality specialists described the use of space-based systems and earth science applications to improve understanding of respiratory health risks worldwide, and to help enrich pulmonary research with galaxies of data.

“Every day we download over 25 terabytes of data,” said John Haynes, MS, program manager for Health and Air Quality Applications in the Earth Action Program of the NASA Earth Science Division in Washington.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Many of the observation data sets are critical for healthy air quality applications: observation of land surface temperature, sea surface temperature, precipitation, fires and thermal anomalies, aerosols, just to name a few, and the really awesome news is this offering from our constellation of satellites is free and open access, available to everyone across the globe,” he said.

The mission of NASA’s Earth Action Program is “to enable people and organizations to apply insights from Earth science to benefit the economy, health, quality of life, and environment.”

Program staff work with both industry and nonprofit environmental advocacy and health groups to help inform their decisions and actions with Earth science information.

NASA supports the use of Earth observations to help monitor and manage infectious diseases and environmental health, toxins and pathogens that affect health, air quality standards, and to assess the effects of climate change on air quality and public health.

Mr. Haynes noted that worldwide, six major cities have incorporated NASA data on fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) into their climate action plans. These cities include Accra, Ghana; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Guadalajara, Mexico; Lima, Peru; and Johannesburg, South Africa.
 

Monitoring pollution with TEMPO

There are more than 30 Earth-monitoring systems currently in orbit or soon to be launched, including NASA’s Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution (TEMPO), launched in April 2023, with first operations in August 2023. The instrument is in a geostationary orbit about 22,236 miles above the equator at longitudes that allow it to survey virtually all of North America — from coast to coast, and from southern Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas to Northern Canada.

TEMPO is part of a geostationary air quality satellite “constellation” or group that provides daylight observation over the entire Northern Hemisphere, explained Aaron Naeger, PhD, MS, mission applications lead for TEMPO at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Until TEMPO, space-based instruments had relatively low spatial resolution and could only capture one image each day. In contrast, TEMPO can scan east-west each daylight hour across its entire coverage area (known as the Field of Regard), and even more frequently during early morning and late afternoon. This allows researchers to measure volumes of pollution, sources, and how these pollution levels vary over time. The system measures ozone levels, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂,) formaldehyde, and aerosols.

More than 100 federal, state, local and tribal air quality agencies use the data captured by TEMPO to inform public health efforts.

Dr. Naeger gave examples of how the system can help identify public health hazards, including scans that showed high NO₂ levels from cities, traffic corridors, power plants, oil and gas fields, and fires.

Similarly, the system detected unhealthy ozone and PM2.5 levels during prescribed burns in April 2024, as well as notable differences between weekdays and weekends in NO₂ concentrations across California and the Front Range in Colorado. These showed higher levels along traffic corridors during weekdays related to increased traffic volumes and tailpipe emissions.
 

Fire and heat

Other NASA health and air quality initiatives include the FireAQ project, based at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, which provides free online weekly briefings on fire-related air quality concerns using data from TEMPO and other NASA satellite systems. The FireAQ project was described by Jun Wang, PhD, from the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

NASA also fosters collaborations to reduce health disparities in air quality and respiratory health in urban heat islands and other areas affected by extreme temperatures due to climate change, as discussed by Christopher K. Uejio, PhD, from Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Air pollution expert George D. Thurston, ScD, professor of medicine and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who attended the session, said that the PM2.5 standard includes nontoxic particulate matter, such as soil, and misses sub-micron sized particles, and asked Mr. Haynes whether smaller particles were being measured in the studies he described.

Mr. Haynes replied that the systems do not directly measure PM2.5 but instead rely on aerosol optical depth, a measure of the extent to which atmospheric particles absorb or scatter sunlight.

Dr. Thurston, who in 1987 was coauthor of groundbreaking study showing the link between PM2.5 levels and mortality, is now an advocate for a tougher standard of measuring ambient ultrafine particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than .1 microns in size (PM1).

NASA health and climate data are available at https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/.

Mr. Haynes and Dr. Naeger are NASA employees. Dr. Thurston had no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – No matter where on earth you live, there’s likely to be an eye in the sky hovering overhead, and that’s a good thing, at least when it comes to satellite monitoring of air quality, said scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

In a special symposium held at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference, NASA health and air quality specialists described the use of space-based systems and earth science applications to improve understanding of respiratory health risks worldwide, and to help enrich pulmonary research with galaxies of data.

“Every day we download over 25 terabytes of data,” said John Haynes, MS, program manager for Health and Air Quality Applications in the Earth Action Program of the NASA Earth Science Division in Washington.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Many of the observation data sets are critical for healthy air quality applications: observation of land surface temperature, sea surface temperature, precipitation, fires and thermal anomalies, aerosols, just to name a few, and the really awesome news is this offering from our constellation of satellites is free and open access, available to everyone across the globe,” he said.

The mission of NASA’s Earth Action Program is “to enable people and organizations to apply insights from Earth science to benefit the economy, health, quality of life, and environment.”

Program staff work with both industry and nonprofit environmental advocacy and health groups to help inform their decisions and actions with Earth science information.

NASA supports the use of Earth observations to help monitor and manage infectious diseases and environmental health, toxins and pathogens that affect health, air quality standards, and to assess the effects of climate change on air quality and public health.

Mr. Haynes noted that worldwide, six major cities have incorporated NASA data on fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) into their climate action plans. These cities include Accra, Ghana; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Guadalajara, Mexico; Lima, Peru; and Johannesburg, South Africa.
 

Monitoring pollution with TEMPO

There are more than 30 Earth-monitoring systems currently in orbit or soon to be launched, including NASA’s Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution (TEMPO), launched in April 2023, with first operations in August 2023. The instrument is in a geostationary orbit about 22,236 miles above the equator at longitudes that allow it to survey virtually all of North America — from coast to coast, and from southern Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas to Northern Canada.

TEMPO is part of a geostationary air quality satellite “constellation” or group that provides daylight observation over the entire Northern Hemisphere, explained Aaron Naeger, PhD, MS, mission applications lead for TEMPO at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Until TEMPO, space-based instruments had relatively low spatial resolution and could only capture one image each day. In contrast, TEMPO can scan east-west each daylight hour across its entire coverage area (known as the Field of Regard), and even more frequently during early morning and late afternoon. This allows researchers to measure volumes of pollution, sources, and how these pollution levels vary over time. The system measures ozone levels, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂,) formaldehyde, and aerosols.

More than 100 federal, state, local and tribal air quality agencies use the data captured by TEMPO to inform public health efforts.

Dr. Naeger gave examples of how the system can help identify public health hazards, including scans that showed high NO₂ levels from cities, traffic corridors, power plants, oil and gas fields, and fires.

Similarly, the system detected unhealthy ozone and PM2.5 levels during prescribed burns in April 2024, as well as notable differences between weekdays and weekends in NO₂ concentrations across California and the Front Range in Colorado. These showed higher levels along traffic corridors during weekdays related to increased traffic volumes and tailpipe emissions.
 

Fire and heat

Other NASA health and air quality initiatives include the FireAQ project, based at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, which provides free online weekly briefings on fire-related air quality concerns using data from TEMPO and other NASA satellite systems. The FireAQ project was described by Jun Wang, PhD, from the University of Iowa in Iowa City.

NASA also fosters collaborations to reduce health disparities in air quality and respiratory health in urban heat islands and other areas affected by extreme temperatures due to climate change, as discussed by Christopher K. Uejio, PhD, from Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Air pollution expert George D. Thurston, ScD, professor of medicine and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who attended the session, said that the PM2.5 standard includes nontoxic particulate matter, such as soil, and misses sub-micron sized particles, and asked Mr. Haynes whether smaller particles were being measured in the studies he described.

Mr. Haynes replied that the systems do not directly measure PM2.5 but instead rely on aerosol optical depth, a measure of the extent to which atmospheric particles absorb or scatter sunlight.

Dr. Thurston, who in 1987 was coauthor of groundbreaking study showing the link between PM2.5 levels and mortality, is now an advocate for a tougher standard of measuring ambient ultrafine particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than .1 microns in size (PM1).

NASA health and climate data are available at https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/.

Mr. Haynes and Dr. Naeger are NASA employees. Dr. Thurston had no relevant disclosures.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

SAN DIEGO — While there is currently no smoking gun definitively showing that indoor nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) concentrations from gas appliances are a cause of pulmonary diseases, the circumstantial evidence of the baleful effects of gas stoves on lung function is pretty compelling, said participants in a pro-con debate.

In what the moderator called “one of the most agreeable debates yet,” experts presented their views on the risks that cooking with natural gas pose on pulmonary health, and discussed ways for mitigating that harm. The debate was held at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

PRO: Gas stoves cause lung disease

Arguing for the “pro” side, John R. Balmes, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and a physician member of the California Air Resources Board, began by admitting that “I would never have said gas stoves cause lung disease, but that’s what they assigned me.”

Gamely proceeding anyway, Dr. Balmes noted that natural gas — methane — is a potent greenhouse gas, and that cooking with natural gas leads to generation of NO₂ with high peak concentrations in the home, especially in the kitchen, but in other rooms as well.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Con: More evidence needed

Arguing for the “con” side of the question, Meredith C. McCormack, MD, MHS, professor of medicine in the pulmonary and critical care division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that “more definitive evidence is needed to define whether gas stoves cause lung disease.”

But Dr. McCormack didn’t let the natural gas industry off the hook, noting that a systematic review and meta-analysis of cooking with gas in high-, middle-, and low-income countries showed that domestic use of gas fuels vs. electric was associated with increased risk of asthma (1.11 overall), COPD (1.15), and pneumonia (1.26).

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

On common ground

Environmental interventions that can benefit all members of a household — not just those with obstructive pulmonary disease — include smoking cessation, charcoal filter-equipped air cleaners, stove hoods that vent outdoors, integrated pest management, hypoallergenic pillow and mattress covers, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums, and mold and radon abatement.

Both Dr. Balmes and Dr. McCormack agreed in the end that gas stoves contribute to respiratory morbidity, and that both state and national policy changes are needed to support transition to cleaner indoor air, with financial incentives available for households with more modest incomes.

“For everyone, there is a climate-change mitigation imperative to transition away from gas appliances if we want to tackle the climate emergency,” Dr. Balmes said.
 

End indoor combustion

George D. Thurston, ScD, professor of medicine and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who attended the debate, told Chest Physician that the participants talked about NO₂ but didn’t touch on particulate pollution generated by gas stoves.

Burning natural gas produces particles that are very similar in composition to those produced by burning coal, oil, or diesel fuel, Dr. Thurston said, and he pointed out that interventions such as range hoods work only if they actually vent outdoors, and aren’t simply fans that recirculate the air within the home. And even when ventilation works as it should to move air out of the house, it only pumps it back into the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.

“We need combustion-free homes. That’s the unifying principle. We have to keep our eyes on that prize,” he said.

Dr. Balmes, Dr. McCormack, and Dr. Thurston all reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — While there is currently no smoking gun definitively showing that indoor nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) concentrations from gas appliances are a cause of pulmonary diseases, the circumstantial evidence of the baleful effects of gas stoves on lung function is pretty compelling, said participants in a pro-con debate.

In what the moderator called “one of the most agreeable debates yet,” experts presented their views on the risks that cooking with natural gas pose on pulmonary health, and discussed ways for mitigating that harm. The debate was held at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

PRO: Gas stoves cause lung disease

Arguing for the “pro” side, John R. Balmes, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and a physician member of the California Air Resources Board, began by admitting that “I would never have said gas stoves cause lung disease, but that’s what they assigned me.”

Gamely proceeding anyway, Dr. Balmes noted that natural gas — methane — is a potent greenhouse gas, and that cooking with natural gas leads to generation of NO₂ with high peak concentrations in the home, especially in the kitchen, but in other rooms as well.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Con: More evidence needed

Arguing for the “con” side of the question, Meredith C. McCormack, MD, MHS, professor of medicine in the pulmonary and critical care division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that “more definitive evidence is needed to define whether gas stoves cause lung disease.”

But Dr. McCormack didn’t let the natural gas industry off the hook, noting that a systematic review and meta-analysis of cooking with gas in high-, middle-, and low-income countries showed that domestic use of gas fuels vs. electric was associated with increased risk of asthma (1.11 overall), COPD (1.15), and pneumonia (1.26).

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

On common ground

Environmental interventions that can benefit all members of a household — not just those with obstructive pulmonary disease — include smoking cessation, charcoal filter-equipped air cleaners, stove hoods that vent outdoors, integrated pest management, hypoallergenic pillow and mattress covers, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums, and mold and radon abatement.

Both Dr. Balmes and Dr. McCormack agreed in the end that gas stoves contribute to respiratory morbidity, and that both state and national policy changes are needed to support transition to cleaner indoor air, with financial incentives available for households with more modest incomes.

“For everyone, there is a climate-change mitigation imperative to transition away from gas appliances if we want to tackle the climate emergency,” Dr. Balmes said.
 

End indoor combustion

George D. Thurston, ScD, professor of medicine and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who attended the debate, told Chest Physician that the participants talked about NO₂ but didn’t touch on particulate pollution generated by gas stoves.

Burning natural gas produces particles that are very similar in composition to those produced by burning coal, oil, or diesel fuel, Dr. Thurston said, and he pointed out that interventions such as range hoods work only if they actually vent outdoors, and aren’t simply fans that recirculate the air within the home. And even when ventilation works as it should to move air out of the house, it only pumps it back into the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.

“We need combustion-free homes. That’s the unifying principle. We have to keep our eyes on that prize,” he said.

Dr. Balmes, Dr. McCormack, and Dr. Thurston all reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — While there is currently no smoking gun definitively showing that indoor nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) concentrations from gas appliances are a cause of pulmonary diseases, the circumstantial evidence of the baleful effects of gas stoves on lung function is pretty compelling, said participants in a pro-con debate.

In what the moderator called “one of the most agreeable debates yet,” experts presented their views on the risks that cooking with natural gas pose on pulmonary health, and discussed ways for mitigating that harm. The debate was held at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

PRO: Gas stoves cause lung disease

Arguing for the “pro” side, John R. Balmes, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and a physician member of the California Air Resources Board, began by admitting that “I would never have said gas stoves cause lung disease, but that’s what they assigned me.”

Gamely proceeding anyway, Dr. Balmes noted that natural gas — methane — is a potent greenhouse gas, and that cooking with natural gas leads to generation of NO₂ with high peak concentrations in the home, especially in the kitchen, but in other rooms as well.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

Con: More evidence needed

Arguing for the “con” side of the question, Meredith C. McCormack, MD, MHS, professor of medicine in the pulmonary and critical care division at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said that “more definitive evidence is needed to define whether gas stoves cause lung disease.”

But Dr. McCormack didn’t let the natural gas industry off the hook, noting that a systematic review and meta-analysis of cooking with gas in high-, middle-, and low-income countries showed that domestic use of gas fuels vs. electric was associated with increased risk of asthma (1.11 overall), COPD (1.15), and pneumonia (1.26).

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

On common ground

Environmental interventions that can benefit all members of a household — not just those with obstructive pulmonary disease — include smoking cessation, charcoal filter-equipped air cleaners, stove hoods that vent outdoors, integrated pest management, hypoallergenic pillow and mattress covers, high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums, and mold and radon abatement.

Both Dr. Balmes and Dr. McCormack agreed in the end that gas stoves contribute to respiratory morbidity, and that both state and national policy changes are needed to support transition to cleaner indoor air, with financial incentives available for households with more modest incomes.

“For everyone, there is a climate-change mitigation imperative to transition away from gas appliances if we want to tackle the climate emergency,” Dr. Balmes said.
 

End indoor combustion

George D. Thurston, ScD, professor of medicine and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, who attended the debate, told Chest Physician that the participants talked about NO₂ but didn’t touch on particulate pollution generated by gas stoves.

Burning natural gas produces particles that are very similar in composition to those produced by burning coal, oil, or diesel fuel, Dr. Thurston said, and he pointed out that interventions such as range hoods work only if they actually vent outdoors, and aren’t simply fans that recirculate the air within the home. And even when ventilation works as it should to move air out of the house, it only pumps it back into the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.

“We need combustion-free homes. That’s the unifying principle. We have to keep our eyes on that prize,” he said.

Dr. Balmes, Dr. McCormack, and Dr. Thurston all reported having no relevant disclosures.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.