Pulmonary Health Hub

Women with asthma who suffer asthma exacerbation while pregnant are at increased risk for complications during pregnancy and delivery, and their infants are at increased risk for respiratory problems, according to data from a longitudinal study of 58,524 women with asthma.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

“Asthma exacerbation during pregnancy has been found to be associated with adverse perinatal and pregnancy outcomes such as low birth weight, small for gestational age, preterm delivery, congenital malformation, preeclampsia, and perinatal mortality,” but previous studies have been small and limited to comparisons of asthmatic and nonasthmatic women, wrote Kawsari Abdullah, PhD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues.

To determine the impact of asthma exacerbation on maternal and fetal outcomes, the researchers analyzed data from the Ontario Asthma Surveillance Information System to identify women with asthma who had at least one pregnancy resulting in a live or still birth between 2006 and 2012.

Overall, significantly more women with exacerbated asthma had preeclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension, compared with asthmatic women who had no exacerbations, at 5% vs. 4% and 7% vs. 5%, respectively (P less than .001), according to the study published in the European Respiratory Journal.

Adverse perinatal outcomes were significantly more likely among babies of mothers with exacerbated asthma, compared with those who had no exacerbations, including low birth weight (7% vs. 5%), small for gestational age (3% vs. 2%), preterm birth (8% vs. 7%), and congenital malformation (6% vs. 5%). All P values were less than .001, except for small for gestational age, which was P = .008.

In addition, significantly more babies of asthmatic women with exacerbated asthma during pregnancy had respiratory problems including asthma and pneumonia, compared with those of asthmatic women who had no exacerbations during pregnancy, at 38% vs. 31% and 24% vs. 22% (P less than .001 for both). The researchers found no significant interactions between maternal age and smoking and asthma exacerbations.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a validated algorithm for asthma exacerbation, which the researchers defined as five or more visits to a general practice clinician for asthma during pregnancy. Other limitations included the lack of categorizing asthma exacerbation by severity, and the inability to include the potential effects of asthma medication on maternal and fetal outcomes, Dr. Abdullah and colleagues noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and ability to follow babies from birth until 5 years of age, they said.

“Targeting women with asthma during pregnancy and ensuring appropriate asthma management and postpartum follow-up may help to reduce the risk of pregnancy complications, adverse perinatal outcomes, and early childhood respiratory disorders,” they concluded.

This study is important because asthma is a common, potentially serious medical condition that complicates approximately 4%-8% of pregnancies, and one in three women with asthma experience an exacerbation during pregnancy, Iris Krishna, MD, a specialist in maternal/fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is unique in that it uses population-level data to assess the association between an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes,” Dr. Krishna said. “After adjusting for confounders, and consistent with previous studies, study findings suggest an increased risk for women with asthma who have an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy for preeclampsia [odds ratio, 1.3; P less than .001], pregnancy-induced hypertension [OR, 1.17; P less than .05], low-birth-weight infant [OR, 1.14; P less than .05], preterm birth [OR, 1.14; P less than .05], and congenital malformations [OR, 1.21; P less than .001].”

Dr. Krishna also noted the impact on early childhood outcomes. “In this study, children born to women who had an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy had a 23% higher risk of developing asthma before 5 years of age, which is consistent with previous studies. [The] investigators also reported a 12% higher risk of having pneumonia during the first 5 years of life for children born to women who had an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy.”

“Previous studies have suggested children born to mothers with uncontrolled asthma have an increased risk for respiratory infections, but this study is the first to report an association with pneumonia,” she said. This increased risk for childhood respiratory disorders warrants further study.

Consequently, “Women with asthma during pregnancy should have appropriate management to ensure good control to optimize pregnancy outcome,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Women who experience asthma exacerbations in pregnancy are at increased risk for preeclampsia, [pregnancy-induced hypertension], low birth weight, and preterm delivery and may require closer monitoring.”

The study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The researchers and Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Abdullah K et al. Eur Respir J. 2019 Nov 26. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01335-2019.

Women with asthma who suffer asthma exacerbation while pregnant are at increased risk for complications during pregnancy and delivery, and their infants are at increased risk for respiratory problems, according to data from a longitudinal study of 58,524 women with asthma.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

“Asthma exacerbation during pregnancy has been found to be associated with adverse perinatal and pregnancy outcomes such as low birth weight, small for gestational age, preterm delivery, congenital malformation, preeclampsia, and perinatal mortality,” but previous studies have been small and limited to comparisons of asthmatic and nonasthmatic women, wrote Kawsari Abdullah, PhD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues.

To determine the impact of asthma exacerbation on maternal and fetal outcomes, the researchers analyzed data from the Ontario Asthma Surveillance Information System to identify women with asthma who had at least one pregnancy resulting in a live or still birth between 2006 and 2012.

Overall, significantly more women with exacerbated asthma had preeclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension, compared with asthmatic women who had no exacerbations, at 5% vs. 4% and 7% vs. 5%, respectively (P less than .001), according to the study published in the European Respiratory Journal.

Adverse perinatal outcomes were significantly more likely among babies of mothers with exacerbated asthma, compared with those who had no exacerbations, including low birth weight (7% vs. 5%), small for gestational age (3% vs. 2%), preterm birth (8% vs. 7%), and congenital malformation (6% vs. 5%). All P values were less than .001, except for small for gestational age, which was P = .008.

In addition, significantly more babies of asthmatic women with exacerbated asthma during pregnancy had respiratory problems including asthma and pneumonia, compared with those of asthmatic women who had no exacerbations during pregnancy, at 38% vs. 31% and 24% vs. 22% (P less than .001 for both). The researchers found no significant interactions between maternal age and smoking and asthma exacerbations.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a validated algorithm for asthma exacerbation, which the researchers defined as five or more visits to a general practice clinician for asthma during pregnancy. Other limitations included the lack of categorizing asthma exacerbation by severity, and the inability to include the potential effects of asthma medication on maternal and fetal outcomes, Dr. Abdullah and colleagues noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and ability to follow babies from birth until 5 years of age, they said.

“Targeting women with asthma during pregnancy and ensuring appropriate asthma management and postpartum follow-up may help to reduce the risk of pregnancy complications, adverse perinatal outcomes, and early childhood respiratory disorders,” they concluded.

This study is important because asthma is a common, potentially serious medical condition that complicates approximately 4%-8% of pregnancies, and one in three women with asthma experience an exacerbation during pregnancy, Iris Krishna, MD, a specialist in maternal/fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is unique in that it uses population-level data to assess the association between an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes,” Dr. Krishna said. “After adjusting for confounders, and consistent with previous studies, study findings suggest an increased risk for women with asthma who have an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy for preeclampsia [odds ratio, 1.3; P less than .001], pregnancy-induced hypertension [OR, 1.17; P less than .05], low-birth-weight infant [OR, 1.14; P less than .05], preterm birth [OR, 1.14; P less than .05], and congenital malformations [OR, 1.21; P less than .001].”

Dr. Krishna also noted the impact on early childhood outcomes. “In this study, children born to women who had an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy had a 23% higher risk of developing asthma before 5 years of age, which is consistent with previous studies. [The] investigators also reported a 12% higher risk of having pneumonia during the first 5 years of life for children born to women who had an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy.”

“Previous studies have suggested children born to mothers with uncontrolled asthma have an increased risk for respiratory infections, but this study is the first to report an association with pneumonia,” she said. This increased risk for childhood respiratory disorders warrants further study.

Consequently, “Women with asthma during pregnancy should have appropriate management to ensure good control to optimize pregnancy outcome,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Women who experience asthma exacerbations in pregnancy are at increased risk for preeclampsia, [pregnancy-induced hypertension], low birth weight, and preterm delivery and may require closer monitoring.”

The study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The researchers and Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Abdullah K et al. Eur Respir J. 2019 Nov 26. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01335-2019.

Women with asthma who suffer asthma exacerbation while pregnant are at increased risk for complications during pregnancy and delivery, and their infants are at increased risk for respiratory problems, according to data from a longitudinal study of 58,524 women with asthma.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

“Asthma exacerbation during pregnancy has been found to be associated with adverse perinatal and pregnancy outcomes such as low birth weight, small for gestational age, preterm delivery, congenital malformation, preeclampsia, and perinatal mortality,” but previous studies have been small and limited to comparisons of asthmatic and nonasthmatic women, wrote Kawsari Abdullah, PhD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, and colleagues.

To determine the impact of asthma exacerbation on maternal and fetal outcomes, the researchers analyzed data from the Ontario Asthma Surveillance Information System to identify women with asthma who had at least one pregnancy resulting in a live or still birth between 2006 and 2012.

Overall, significantly more women with exacerbated asthma had preeclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension, compared with asthmatic women who had no exacerbations, at 5% vs. 4% and 7% vs. 5%, respectively (P less than .001), according to the study published in the European Respiratory Journal.

Adverse perinatal outcomes were significantly more likely among babies of mothers with exacerbated asthma, compared with those who had no exacerbations, including low birth weight (7% vs. 5%), small for gestational age (3% vs. 2%), preterm birth (8% vs. 7%), and congenital malformation (6% vs. 5%). All P values were less than .001, except for small for gestational age, which was P = .008.

In addition, significantly more babies of asthmatic women with exacerbated asthma during pregnancy had respiratory problems including asthma and pneumonia, compared with those of asthmatic women who had no exacerbations during pregnancy, at 38% vs. 31% and 24% vs. 22% (P less than .001 for both). The researchers found no significant interactions between maternal age and smoking and asthma exacerbations.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of a validated algorithm for asthma exacerbation, which the researchers defined as five or more visits to a general practice clinician for asthma during pregnancy. Other limitations included the lack of categorizing asthma exacerbation by severity, and the inability to include the potential effects of asthma medication on maternal and fetal outcomes, Dr. Abdullah and colleagues noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and ability to follow babies from birth until 5 years of age, they said.

“Targeting women with asthma during pregnancy and ensuring appropriate asthma management and postpartum follow-up may help to reduce the risk of pregnancy complications, adverse perinatal outcomes, and early childhood respiratory disorders,” they concluded.

This study is important because asthma is a common, potentially serious medical condition that complicates approximately 4%-8% of pregnancies, and one in three women with asthma experience an exacerbation during pregnancy, Iris Krishna, MD, a specialist in maternal/fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“This study is unique in that it uses population-level data to assess the association between an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes,” Dr. Krishna said. “After adjusting for confounders, and consistent with previous studies, study findings suggest an increased risk for women with asthma who have an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy for preeclampsia [odds ratio, 1.3; P less than .001], pregnancy-induced hypertension [OR, 1.17; P less than .05], low-birth-weight infant [OR, 1.14; P less than .05], preterm birth [OR, 1.14; P less than .05], and congenital malformations [OR, 1.21; P less than .001].”

Dr. Krishna also noted the impact on early childhood outcomes. “In this study, children born to women who had an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy had a 23% higher risk of developing asthma before 5 years of age, which is consistent with previous studies. [The] investigators also reported a 12% higher risk of having pneumonia during the first 5 years of life for children born to women who had an asthma exacerbation during pregnancy.”

“Previous studies have suggested children born to mothers with uncontrolled asthma have an increased risk for respiratory infections, but this study is the first to report an association with pneumonia,” she said. This increased risk for childhood respiratory disorders warrants further study.

Consequently, “Women with asthma during pregnancy should have appropriate management to ensure good control to optimize pregnancy outcome,” Dr. Krishna emphasized. “Women who experience asthma exacerbations in pregnancy are at increased risk for preeclampsia, [pregnancy-induced hypertension], low birth weight, and preterm delivery and may require closer monitoring.”

The study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The researchers and Dr. Krishna had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Abdullah K et al. Eur Respir J. 2019 Nov 26. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01335-2019.

The vaping lung disease outbreak continues, but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it may have peaked and the number of new hospitalized cases reported to the CDC may be decreasing.

HAZEMMKAMAL/Getty Images

In the Dec. 6, 2019, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC has updated information about cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI): As of Dec. 3, there have been 2,291 cases reported from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands). A total of 48 deaths have been confirmed in 25 states and Washington, D.C., the CDC reported.

The largest number of weekly hospitalized cases occurred during the week of Sept. 15, 2019; since then, hospitalized cases have steadily declined. “Among all hospitalized EVALI patients reported to CDC weekly, the percentage of recent cases (patients hospitalized within the preceding 3 weeks) declined from 58% reported November 12 to 30% reported December 3,” the report stated.

About 80%of hospitalized EVALI patients reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products. “Dank Vapes,” counterfeit THC-containing products of unknown origin, were the most commonly reported THC-containing branded products used. Dank Vapes were used by 56% of hospitalized EVALI patients nationwide, followed by TKO brand (15%), Smart Cart (13%), and Rove (12%).

Of EVALI patients for whom data were available, 67% were male, and the median age was 24 years (range, 13-77 years); 78% were aged under 35 years and 16% were under 18 years. About 75% of EVALI patients were non-Hispanic white and 16% were Hispanic. Among the 48 deaths, 54% of patients were male, and the median age was 52 years (range, 17-75 years).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lozier MJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6849e1.

The vaping lung disease outbreak continues, but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it may have peaked and the number of new hospitalized cases reported to the CDC may be decreasing.

HAZEMMKAMAL/Getty Images

In the Dec. 6, 2019, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC has updated information about cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI): As of Dec. 3, there have been 2,291 cases reported from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands). A total of 48 deaths have been confirmed in 25 states and Washington, D.C., the CDC reported.

The largest number of weekly hospitalized cases occurred during the week of Sept. 15, 2019; since then, hospitalized cases have steadily declined. “Among all hospitalized EVALI patients reported to CDC weekly, the percentage of recent cases (patients hospitalized within the preceding 3 weeks) declined from 58% reported November 12 to 30% reported December 3,” the report stated.

About 80%of hospitalized EVALI patients reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products. “Dank Vapes,” counterfeit THC-containing products of unknown origin, were the most commonly reported THC-containing branded products used. Dank Vapes were used by 56% of hospitalized EVALI patients nationwide, followed by TKO brand (15%), Smart Cart (13%), and Rove (12%).

Of EVALI patients for whom data were available, 67% were male, and the median age was 24 years (range, 13-77 years); 78% were aged under 35 years and 16% were under 18 years. About 75% of EVALI patients were non-Hispanic white and 16% were Hispanic. Among the 48 deaths, 54% of patients were male, and the median age was 52 years (range, 17-75 years).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lozier MJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6849e1.

The vaping lung disease outbreak continues, but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it may have peaked and the number of new hospitalized cases reported to the CDC may be decreasing.

HAZEMMKAMAL/Getty Images

In the Dec. 6, 2019, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC has updated information about cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI): As of Dec. 3, there have been 2,291 cases reported from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands). A total of 48 deaths have been confirmed in 25 states and Washington, D.C., the CDC reported.

The largest number of weekly hospitalized cases occurred during the week of Sept. 15, 2019; since then, hospitalized cases have steadily declined. “Among all hospitalized EVALI patients reported to CDC weekly, the percentage of recent cases (patients hospitalized within the preceding 3 weeks) declined from 58% reported November 12 to 30% reported December 3,” the report stated.

About 80%of hospitalized EVALI patients reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products. “Dank Vapes,” counterfeit THC-containing products of unknown origin, were the most commonly reported THC-containing branded products used. Dank Vapes were used by 56% of hospitalized EVALI patients nationwide, followed by TKO brand (15%), Smart Cart (13%), and Rove (12%).

Of EVALI patients for whom data were available, 67% were male, and the median age was 24 years (range, 13-77 years); 78% were aged under 35 years and 16% were under 18 years. About 75% of EVALI patients were non-Hispanic white and 16% were Hispanic. Among the 48 deaths, 54% of patients were male, and the median age was 52 years (range, 17-75 years).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lozier MJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6849e1.

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.^1,2 Arising from that hypothesis, macrolide antibiotics have been the subject of clinical trials and other studies to determine whether these drugs are efficacious in the long-term management of asthma in adults and children. Macrolides might also have immunomodulatory and antiviral properties that can benefit patients with asthma.³

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.

This article looks at the evidence and clinical scenarios for the use of macrolides in asthma, provides proposed dosing schedules, and reviews associated concerns, including adverse effects, risk of bacterial resistance, and cost.

3 cases to consider

CASE 1 Paul D developed severe, refractory asthma at 30 years of age after an acute respiratory illness. At age 40, he was treated with 14 weekly doses of azithromycin. His asthma resolved slowly over 12 months.

Outcome. Mr. D has remained free of symptoms of ­asthma for more than 20 years.

CASE 2 Casey K developed severe wheezing at 18 months of age after an acute respiratory illness. Refractory asthma symptoms persisted until 6 years of age, at which time he was given 12 weekly doses of azithromycin. Asthma symptoms gradually resolved.

Outcome. Casey was able to resume normal physical ­activities, including competitive swimming.

CASE 3 Amy S, who had no history of respiratory problems, presented at 30 years of age with a 3-month history of wheezing and dyspnea after an acute respiratory illness. She was treated symptomatically with bronchodilators; wheezing failed to resolve. After 6 months of persistent wheezing that significantly affected her exercise capacity, Ms. S was given a diagnosis of persistent asthma and received 12 weekly doses of azithromycin.

[polldaddy:10475438]

Continue to: Outcome...

Outcome. Ms. S’s symptoms resolved completely within months.

Evidence of benefit of macrolides in asthma

These 3 cases, taken from my practice (but with names changed), demonstrate the therapeutic potential of macrolide antibiotics for patients with asthma under specific clinical circumstances. The cases are referenced again in the following examination of the literature on macrolides for asthma

Meta-analysis. Reiter et al⁴ performed a meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials of macrolides for long-term management of asthma in children and adults. Prolonged treatment was defined as > 3 weeks of continuous administration of a macrolide. The pooled effect of macrolides on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was not significant; however, a significant effect on peak expiratory flow, symptom scores, quality of life, and airway hyperreactivity was observed.

Comment: The study’s authors concluded: “Macrolides may therefore be beneficial as adjunct asthma therapy. Future trials, focusing on long-term safety and effectiveness, should use standardized outcomes and ­procedures.”

Cochrane meta-analysis. Kew et al⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 23 studies of macrolides for managing chronic asthma for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In their review, they reported

• no significant effects of macrolides on asthma exacerbations, asthma control, quality of life, and rescue medication use; and
• significant effects of macrolides for asthma symptoms and FEV₁.

Continue to: Two within-study subgroup...

Some patients with asthma who respond to azithromycin experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment.

Two within-study subgroup analyses showed a possible benefit of macrolides for non-­eosinophilic asthma, defined by a predominance of neutrophils in a bronchoalveolar lavage specimen. Kew et al⁵ noted that (1) most of the evidence examined in the review was of low quality and (2) inclusion criteria, interventions, and outcomes were highly variable.

Comment: The validity of a meta-analysis depends on the validity and similarity of underlying trials. Both meta-analyses just described were characterized by (1) grouping trials of older and newer macrolides and (2) significant selection bias in the underlying trials.

Selection bias is prevalent in asthma research and is a major contributor to uncertainty: Randomized controlled trials upon which guideline treatments are based have systematically excluded > 90% of people with asthma.⁶ Exclusions include past or current smoking, the asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome, severe asthma, and acute respiratory illness; these exclusion criteria have also been applied to studies of macrolides. Importantly, patients in the excluded groups are probably those most likely to respond to a macrolide.² Pragmatic effectiveness studies (broad eligibility criteria, adequate duration of azithromycin treatment, a posttreatment observation period, and pre-specified biomarker subgroup analyses) have been recommended to address the hypothesis of what has been termed infectious asthma.²

Inconsistent evidence, the generally poor quality of underlying studies, and uncertainty about which subgroup(s) of asthma patients might benefit all contribute to a strength of recommendation of “B” for treating asthma with macrolides. Two recent randomized trials^7,8 that were not included in the cited meta-analyses, along with other evidence,² point to 2 groups of patients who are candidates for a trial of azithromycin: those with severe refractory asthma and those with new-onset asthma.

Clinical trial in adults. Gibson et al⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week or placebo for 1 year in 420 adults who had uncontrolled persistent asthma despite taking medium-to-high doses of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting β agonist (LABA) (the AMAZES [Asthma and Macrolides: The Azithromycin Efficacy and Safety] trial; Level 1 study). The mean baseline asthma control questionnaire score was 1.5, equivalent to an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score* of 15.⁹

Continue to: Azithromycin reduced the frequency...

Azithromycin reduced the frequency of asthma exacerbations (to 1.07 per patient–year for azithromycin, compared with 1.86 per patient–year for placebo [incidence rate ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.74]). The percentage of patients experiencing at least 1 exacerbation was reduced with azithromycin treatment (61% of patients in the placebo group experienced ≥ 1 exacerbation, compared with 44% in the azithromycin group [P < .0001; number needed to treat = 6]). Asthma quality of life was also improved by azithromycin (P = .001).

There was no significant difference between azithromycin and placebo in the overall rate of serious adverse events. Diarrhea that did not require treatment discontinuation was more common in patients treated with azithromycin (34%) than in the placebo group (19%). There was no posttreatment observation period to assess whether these azithromycin benefits waned or persisted after treatment was stopped.

Other evidence¹⁰ indicates that at least some patients who respond to azithromycin will experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment is completed (see CASE 1).

Pediatric clinical trial. Stokholm et al⁸ performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin in children 1 to 3 years of age who had been given a diagnosis of recurrent asthma-like symptoms (Level 1 study). Treatment was a 3-day course of azithromycin oral solution, 10 mg/kg/d, or placebo. Random allocation was performed for 158 asthma-like episodes in 72 children.

Azithromycin reduced the wheezing episode to a mean duration of 3.4 days, compared with 7.7 days for placebo (risk reduction = 63.3%; 95% CI, 56%-69.3% [P < .0001]). Effect size increased with early initiation of treatment: ie, an 83% reduction in episode duration was seen when treatment was initiated before Day 6 of the episode, compared with a 36% reduction if treatment was initiated on or after Day 6 (P < .0001).

Continue to: No differences between...

No differences between the randomized groups were observed in clinical adverse ­effects.

Comment: The brief course of azithromycin provided to patients in this trial did not have a significant impact on time to next episode of troublesome lung symptoms in ­individual children. Previous clinical observations have suggested that a longer duration of treatment (3-6 months) might be required to achieve lasting improvement or remission in selected patients with asthma (see CASE 2).^10,11 The short-term benefit of azithromycin for acute wheezing is limited to children: Two comparable acute dosing trials in adults have shown little¹² or no¹³ short-term benefit; however, these negative findings have been ­hypothesized to be the result of selection bias.¹⁴

Other evidence is worth examining

Other studies not included in the meta-­analyses of randomized controlled trials provide additional evidence to support a recommendation of a trial of azithromycin in patients with severe, refractory, or new-onset asthma.

Nonrandomized controlled evidence. AZMATICS (AZithroMycin/Asthma Trial In Community Settings)¹⁵ is the sole randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of long-term azithromycin that included a 9-month posttreatment observation period. Seventy-five participants were randomized to receive a loading dose of 600 mg of azithromycin or placebo once daily for 3 days in Week 1. They then received either azithromycin 600 mg or placebo once weekly for 11 weeks. Posttreatment observation was performed until 48 weeks after randomization.

However, many eligible subjects, whom the principal investigator believed were ­ideal candidates for randomization, declined randomization because they did not want to risk receiving placebo. To accommodate those patients, the protocol was amended to include an open-label (OL) azithromycin arm, in which each participant’s personal physician prescribed azithromycin 750 mg for 11 weeks after a loading dose¹⁶ (OL cohort only, Level 2 study: controlled, nonrandomized, ­nonblinded). The OL group had (1) a higher baseline prevalence of severe, persistent asthma (32%) than the randomized group (8%) (P = .012); and (2) worse asthma quality of life than the randomized patients (P = .023). The OL group represented selection bias attributable to patient preference.

Continue to: The less severely...

The less severely affected randomized group of the trial did not exhibit significant effects attributable to azithromycin. The more severely affected OL cohort demonstrated significant, and large, azithromycin treatment effects for asthma symptoms, asthma quality of life, and asthma control (P < .05 for both groups; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3) that persisted during the posttreatment observation period.

There is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.

Comment: The authors concluded: “Pending further randomized trials and given the relative safety of azithromycin and the significant disease burden from severe, refractory asthma, prescribing prolonged azithromycin therapy to patients with uncontrolled asthma may be considered by managing clinicians, particularly for patients who have failed to respond to conventional treatment and as an alternative to instituting immunomodulatory agents.”¹⁵

Before-and-after trial. Forty-six patients with moderate or severe chronic, persistent, stable asthma were selected as a cohort unlikely to experience spontaneous remission (ie, patients in exacerbation were excluded) (Level 2 study: prospective cohort).¹⁷ Subjects were treated for a median of 4 weeks (range, 3 to 9 weeks) with oral doxycycline, 100 mg bid; azithromycin, 1000 mg, once weekly; or erythromycin, 1000 mg/d in divided doses. Average duration of posttreatment follow-up was 6 months. All subjects were positive for antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.

Four patients with diagnosed acuteC pneumoniae respiratory infection developed chronic asthma, which disappeared in each case after treatment. Of the other 42 seroreactive patients who were treated a mean of 6 years after they developed chronic asthma, 21 had either complete remission of asthma symptoms (n = 3) or major persistent clinical improvement (n = 18). Clinical improvement was more likely to occur in patients with early disease (P = .01) and before development of fixed airway obstruction (P < .01).

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract contributes to the development and progression of asthma.¹⁷ Although clinical improvement was more likely in early asthma compared with asthma with fixed airway obstruction, improvement was nevertheless noted in the latter group.

Continue to: Physicians should also note...

Physicians should also note the landmark trial of azithromycin in severe, smoking-­associated COPD, which found a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life (NNT = 3, to prevent 1 exacerbation).¹⁸

Case series. In a prospective case series (Level 2 study: prospective cohort), 163 primary care outpatients (adolescents and adults) who had acute wheezing illnesses or chronic asthma were evaluated for C pneumoniae infection by serologic testing.¹⁹ A subgroup of this cohort also had nasopharyngeal cultures tested for C pneumoniae.

Rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.

Twenty patients (12%) were given a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection defined by serology (n = 15), culture isolation (n = 3), or both (n = 2). Of the 20, 10 wheezed for the first time—6 of whom subsequently developed chronic asthma (n = 5) or chronic bronchitis (n = 1), with a serologic profile suggesting chronic infection. The other 10 patients who had a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection already had a diagnosis of chronic asthma. In patients with established chronic asthma, initial serologic findings suggested chronic, rather than acute, C pneumoniae infection.

Tx recommendations: When to consider azithromycin

Randomized⁷ and nonrandomized¹⁵ evidence supports treating severely uncontrolled or refractory asthma (strength of recommendation [SOR], B); no comparable randomized trials of azithromycin have been conducted for new-onset asthma (SOR, C). Consider prescribing empiric azithromycin for patients with new-onset asthma in the context of shared decision making about potential benefits, harms, and consequences of chronic asthma (SOR, C).

It is important to note that wheezing is frequently associated with uncomplicated acute bronchitis that resolves spontaneously without antibiotic treatment.¹¹ Azithromycin treatment for new-onset asthma should therefore be reserved for patients in whom apparent uncomplicated acute bronchitis fails to resolve after 3 to 6 months, and whose illness is diagnosable as asthma (see CASE 3).¹⁰

Continue to: Do biomarkers predict response?

 

 

Do biomarkers predict response?

Confirming C pneumoniae infection by bronchoscopy before beginning treatment has been recommended²⁰ but might be impractical; also, diagnostic testing for C pneumoniae is limited in availability and has potentially low sensitivity for diagnosing chronic deep lung infection.

So should you test for C pneumoniae biomarkers (or for biomarkers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, another atypical infection implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma²¹) before initiating treatment? Azithromycin has antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and potential antiviral properties.³ The body of evidence reviewed here indicates that the effects of macrolides on asthma might be, at least in part, antimicrobial. However, there is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.²² Therefore, infection biomarker testing as a decision aid cannot be recommended at this time (although future research might alter this ­recommendation).

Acute bronchitis and asthma-onset ­associated with an acute lower respiratory tract infection have been statistically associated with biomarkers of C pneumoniae infection.²³ However, C pneumoniae biomarkers are also prevalent in patients who have asthma that is not associated with an infectious onset.²³ Several other matters are worth noting:

• C pneumoniae-specific IgA²³ and IgE²⁴ are promising biomarkers that deserve further investigation.
• M pneumoniae infection has also been associated with asthma and a response to antibiotic therapy.^21,25
• Noneosinophilic severe asthma is another potential predictive characteristic.²⁶ The applicability of this biomarker to primary care practice is limited, however, by the invasive nature of bronchoscopy and by the uncertain validity of the diagnostic concept: There is no guarantee that dynamic inflammatory infiltrates remain stable over a lifetime. Furthermore, the AMAZES Trial⁷ reported that azithromycin benefit was comparable in eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma.

Potential for harm withlong-term macrolide use?

Controversies about the role of macrolides in asthma involve uncertainty about who might benefit from treatment and the potential harms of macrolides use (TABLE 1^27,28 and discussed below).²⁹

Adverse effects. The newer macrolides azithromycin and clarithromycin offer favorable safety and tolerability profiles, compared with those of older agents.³⁰ In clinical trials of azithromycin, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea) were usually mild or moderate and rarely (< 2% of subjects) required discontinuation of study medication.^31,32Clostridium difficile diarrhea has not been reported in any of the large clinical trials, in which thousands of patients received azithromycin for 3 to 12 months.^31,32 The major clinical “side ­effects” attributable to azithromycin are a significant reduction, compared to placebo, in acute respiratory illness, bronchitis, pneumonia, and sinusitis.^31,32

Continue to: Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance. Exposure of populations to macrolides can increase the percentage of macrolide-resistant bacterial respiratory pathogens³³; policies aimed at decreasing inappropriate macrolide prescribing can significantly lower that percentage.³⁴ There is no evidence, however, of any detrimental effects of macrolide resistance in individual patients receiving azithromycin.³³

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

In trials of azithromycin for the treatment of trachoma in Africa, significantly fewer deaths occurred in villages where subjects were treated with azithromycin than in villages where azithromycin therapy was not provided.³⁵ In the United States, weekly azithromycin treatment for 3 to 12 months in adults with heart disease resulted in fewer cases of acute bronchitis and pneumonia, compared with the placebo-treated groups^31,32; similar benefit for azithromycin was seen in children who had recurrent lung infection.^8,36

Nevertheless, concern over the spread of macrolide-resistant bacteria to the surrounding community is a concern and a possibility—and should be the subject of future research.

Sudden cardiac death. In a Medicaid population, the risk of sudden cardiac death from taking a macrolide among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease was 1 in ­every 4000 administrations.²⁷ Compare that level of risk with the 1 in 167 risk of an acute cardiovascular event in patients with COPD who start taking a LABA.³⁷ There is no detectable increase in the risk of sudden cardiac death when taking azithromycin in the general (ie, average cardiovascular risk) population^38,39 or when azithromycin is coadministered with a LABA.³

Hearing loss. An excess of 18 (< 1%) patients affected by hearing loss, 7 of whom sought medical attention, was reported among 2004 patients who had stable coronary artery disease and had been treated once weekly with azithromycin for 12 months (P = .02, compared with placebo).³² In another study, hearing test changes leading to discontinuation of azithromycin were detected in an excess of 32 (2.8%) of 1142 patients with COPD treated daily for 1 year.¹⁸

Continue to: Physicians who prescribe...

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

Drug–drug interactions. Azithromycin is free of the drug–drug interactions characteristic of conventional macrolides, such as clarithromycin.⁴⁰ Nevertheless:

• Caution is advised when giving azithromycin in conjunction with coumadin or theophylline.
• Giving azithromycin with antacids that contain aluminum or magnesium salts can reduce the rate, although not the extent, of the absorption of ­azithromycin.
• The serum concentration of azithromycin is markedly increased when it is given with nelfinavir.⁴⁰

Microbiome effects. The host microbiome can have a significant effect on the risk of asthma.² A cross-sectional study indicated that lower respiratory bacterial burden is greater in patients with asthma, compared with that of healthy control subjects, and correlates with bronchial hyperresponsiveness.⁴¹ Early colonization of the infant nasopharynx, particularly with Streptococcus spp, is a predictor of asthma risk.^42,43 Bacterial pathogens in the nasopharyngeal biome at the time of upper respiratory viral infection are significant determinants of risk for the spread of infection to the lower airways, suggesting that these microorganisms contribute to the risk of persistent asthma.⁴¹

In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma qualityof-life outcomes.

Investigators have speculated that, rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.^42,43 Recently, it was shown in a randomized trial that azithromycin induced a perturbation in the gut microbiota of children 14 days after randomization, although the drug did not have a long-lasting effect on the composition of gut microbiota.⁴⁴

Consider a trial of azithromycin for patients who have new-onset asthma.

What about cost?

Inhaled corticosteroids and combination formulations of an ICS and a LABA are expensive and must be taken for the long term. A 3-month course of generic azithromycin—comparable to what was used in the OL subgroup of AZMATICS¹⁵—costs about as much as 1 ICS and LABA combination inhaler. Using published results,^15,45 a pilot cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with persistent asthma compared doubling the ICS dosage, adding salmeterol, adding tiotropium, or prescribing 3 months of azithromycin. In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost-effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma quality-of-life outcomes.* However, reliable cost-effectiveness analyses require more, and better, evidence.

Continue to: Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

 

 

Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

Table 2^7,15 outlines selected long-term (≥ 3 months) macrolide dosing schedules in the management of asthma. Consider a trial of azithromycin for your patients

• whose asthma is refractory (poorly controlled persistent asthma), despite treatment with either an ICS and LABA combination or an ICS and long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination; and
• who have new-onset asthma.

At press time, the European Respiratory Journal published a patient-level meta-analysis that demonstrates that maintenance use of azithromycin decreases exacerbations in adults with asthma. To learn more, go to https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/54/5/1901381

Last, there is no evidence for or against prescribing azithromycin for patients who have chronic asthma that is not refractory but is uncontrolled because they are not being treated according to guidelines.

*Data available from the author upon request. See “Correspondence,” at end of article.

CORRESPONDENCE
David L. Hahn, MD, MS, Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, 1100 Delaplaine Court, Madison, WI 53715; [email protected].

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.^1,2 Arising from that hypothesis, macrolide antibiotics have been the subject of clinical trials and other studies to determine whether these drugs are efficacious in the long-term management of asthma in adults and children. Macrolides might also have immunomodulatory and antiviral properties that can benefit patients with asthma.³

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.

This article looks at the evidence and clinical scenarios for the use of macrolides in asthma, provides proposed dosing schedules, and reviews associated concerns, including adverse effects, risk of bacterial resistance, and cost.

3 cases to consider

CASE 1 Paul D developed severe, refractory asthma at 30 years of age after an acute respiratory illness. At age 40, he was treated with 14 weekly doses of azithromycin. His asthma resolved slowly over 12 months.

Outcome. Mr. D has remained free of symptoms of ­asthma for more than 20 years.

CASE 2 Casey K developed severe wheezing at 18 months of age after an acute respiratory illness. Refractory asthma symptoms persisted until 6 years of age, at which time he was given 12 weekly doses of azithromycin. Asthma symptoms gradually resolved.

Outcome. Casey was able to resume normal physical ­activities, including competitive swimming.

CASE 3 Amy S, who had no history of respiratory problems, presented at 30 years of age with a 3-month history of wheezing and dyspnea after an acute respiratory illness. She was treated symptomatically with bronchodilators; wheezing failed to resolve. After 6 months of persistent wheezing that significantly affected her exercise capacity, Ms. S was given a diagnosis of persistent asthma and received 12 weekly doses of azithromycin.

[polldaddy:10475438]

Continue to: Outcome...

Outcome. Ms. S’s symptoms resolved completely within months.

Evidence of benefit of macrolides in asthma

These 3 cases, taken from my practice (but with names changed), demonstrate the therapeutic potential of macrolide antibiotics for patients with asthma under specific clinical circumstances. The cases are referenced again in the following examination of the literature on macrolides for asthma

Meta-analysis. Reiter et al⁴ performed a meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials of macrolides for long-term management of asthma in children and adults. Prolonged treatment was defined as > 3 weeks of continuous administration of a macrolide. The pooled effect of macrolides on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was not significant; however, a significant effect on peak expiratory flow, symptom scores, quality of life, and airway hyperreactivity was observed.

Comment: The study’s authors concluded: “Macrolides may therefore be beneficial as adjunct asthma therapy. Future trials, focusing on long-term safety and effectiveness, should use standardized outcomes and ­procedures.”

Cochrane meta-analysis. Kew et al⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 23 studies of macrolides for managing chronic asthma for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In their review, they reported

• no significant effects of macrolides on asthma exacerbations, asthma control, quality of life, and rescue medication use; and
• significant effects of macrolides for asthma symptoms and FEV₁.

Continue to: Two within-study subgroup...

Some patients with asthma who respond to azithromycin experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment.

Two within-study subgroup analyses showed a possible benefit of macrolides for non-­eosinophilic asthma, defined by a predominance of neutrophils in a bronchoalveolar lavage specimen. Kew et al⁵ noted that (1) most of the evidence examined in the review was of low quality and (2) inclusion criteria, interventions, and outcomes were highly variable.

Comment: The validity of a meta-analysis depends on the validity and similarity of underlying trials. Both meta-analyses just described were characterized by (1) grouping trials of older and newer macrolides and (2) significant selection bias in the underlying trials.

Selection bias is prevalent in asthma research and is a major contributor to uncertainty: Randomized controlled trials upon which guideline treatments are based have systematically excluded > 90% of people with asthma.⁶ Exclusions include past or current smoking, the asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome, severe asthma, and acute respiratory illness; these exclusion criteria have also been applied to studies of macrolides. Importantly, patients in the excluded groups are probably those most likely to respond to a macrolide.² Pragmatic effectiveness studies (broad eligibility criteria, adequate duration of azithromycin treatment, a posttreatment observation period, and pre-specified biomarker subgroup analyses) have been recommended to address the hypothesis of what has been termed infectious asthma.²

Inconsistent evidence, the generally poor quality of underlying studies, and uncertainty about which subgroup(s) of asthma patients might benefit all contribute to a strength of recommendation of “B” for treating asthma with macrolides. Two recent randomized trials^7,8 that were not included in the cited meta-analyses, along with other evidence,² point to 2 groups of patients who are candidates for a trial of azithromycin: those with severe refractory asthma and those with new-onset asthma.

Clinical trial in adults. Gibson et al⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week or placebo for 1 year in 420 adults who had uncontrolled persistent asthma despite taking medium-to-high doses of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting β agonist (LABA) (the AMAZES [Asthma and Macrolides: The Azithromycin Efficacy and Safety] trial; Level 1 study). The mean baseline asthma control questionnaire score was 1.5, equivalent to an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score* of 15.⁹

Continue to: Azithromycin reduced the frequency...

Azithromycin reduced the frequency of asthma exacerbations (to 1.07 per patient–year for azithromycin, compared with 1.86 per patient–year for placebo [incidence rate ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.74]). The percentage of patients experiencing at least 1 exacerbation was reduced with azithromycin treatment (61% of patients in the placebo group experienced ≥ 1 exacerbation, compared with 44% in the azithromycin group [P < .0001; number needed to treat = 6]). Asthma quality of life was also improved by azithromycin (P = .001).

There was no significant difference between azithromycin and placebo in the overall rate of serious adverse events. Diarrhea that did not require treatment discontinuation was more common in patients treated with azithromycin (34%) than in the placebo group (19%). There was no posttreatment observation period to assess whether these azithromycin benefits waned or persisted after treatment was stopped.

Other evidence¹⁰ indicates that at least some patients who respond to azithromycin will experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment is completed (see CASE 1).

Pediatric clinical trial. Stokholm et al⁸ performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin in children 1 to 3 years of age who had been given a diagnosis of recurrent asthma-like symptoms (Level 1 study). Treatment was a 3-day course of azithromycin oral solution, 10 mg/kg/d, or placebo. Random allocation was performed for 158 asthma-like episodes in 72 children.

Azithromycin reduced the wheezing episode to a mean duration of 3.4 days, compared with 7.7 days for placebo (risk reduction = 63.3%; 95% CI, 56%-69.3% [P < .0001]). Effect size increased with early initiation of treatment: ie, an 83% reduction in episode duration was seen when treatment was initiated before Day 6 of the episode, compared with a 36% reduction if treatment was initiated on or after Day 6 (P < .0001).

Continue to: No differences between...

No differences between the randomized groups were observed in clinical adverse ­effects.

Comment: The brief course of azithromycin provided to patients in this trial did not have a significant impact on time to next episode of troublesome lung symptoms in ­individual children. Previous clinical observations have suggested that a longer duration of treatment (3-6 months) might be required to achieve lasting improvement or remission in selected patients with asthma (see CASE 2).^10,11 The short-term benefit of azithromycin for acute wheezing is limited to children: Two comparable acute dosing trials in adults have shown little¹² or no¹³ short-term benefit; however, these negative findings have been ­hypothesized to be the result of selection bias.¹⁴

Other evidence is worth examining

Other studies not included in the meta-­analyses of randomized controlled trials provide additional evidence to support a recommendation of a trial of azithromycin in patients with severe, refractory, or new-onset asthma.

Nonrandomized controlled evidence. AZMATICS (AZithroMycin/Asthma Trial In Community Settings)¹⁵ is the sole randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of long-term azithromycin that included a 9-month posttreatment observation period. Seventy-five participants were randomized to receive a loading dose of 600 mg of azithromycin or placebo once daily for 3 days in Week 1. They then received either azithromycin 600 mg or placebo once weekly for 11 weeks. Posttreatment observation was performed until 48 weeks after randomization.

However, many eligible subjects, whom the principal investigator believed were ­ideal candidates for randomization, declined randomization because they did not want to risk receiving placebo. To accommodate those patients, the protocol was amended to include an open-label (OL) azithromycin arm, in which each participant’s personal physician prescribed azithromycin 750 mg for 11 weeks after a loading dose¹⁶ (OL cohort only, Level 2 study: controlled, nonrandomized, ­nonblinded). The OL group had (1) a higher baseline prevalence of severe, persistent asthma (32%) than the randomized group (8%) (P = .012); and (2) worse asthma quality of life than the randomized patients (P = .023). The OL group represented selection bias attributable to patient preference.

Continue to: The less severely...

The less severely affected randomized group of the trial did not exhibit significant effects attributable to azithromycin. The more severely affected OL cohort demonstrated significant, and large, azithromycin treatment effects for asthma symptoms, asthma quality of life, and asthma control (P < .05 for both groups; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3) that persisted during the posttreatment observation period.

There is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.

Comment: The authors concluded: “Pending further randomized trials and given the relative safety of azithromycin and the significant disease burden from severe, refractory asthma, prescribing prolonged azithromycin therapy to patients with uncontrolled asthma may be considered by managing clinicians, particularly for patients who have failed to respond to conventional treatment and as an alternative to instituting immunomodulatory agents.”¹⁵

Before-and-after trial. Forty-six patients with moderate or severe chronic, persistent, stable asthma were selected as a cohort unlikely to experience spontaneous remission (ie, patients in exacerbation were excluded) (Level 2 study: prospective cohort).¹⁷ Subjects were treated for a median of 4 weeks (range, 3 to 9 weeks) with oral doxycycline, 100 mg bid; azithromycin, 1000 mg, once weekly; or erythromycin, 1000 mg/d in divided doses. Average duration of posttreatment follow-up was 6 months. All subjects were positive for antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.

Four patients with diagnosed acuteC pneumoniae respiratory infection developed chronic asthma, which disappeared in each case after treatment. Of the other 42 seroreactive patients who were treated a mean of 6 years after they developed chronic asthma, 21 had either complete remission of asthma symptoms (n = 3) or major persistent clinical improvement (n = 18). Clinical improvement was more likely to occur in patients with early disease (P = .01) and before development of fixed airway obstruction (P < .01).

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract contributes to the development and progression of asthma.¹⁷ Although clinical improvement was more likely in early asthma compared with asthma with fixed airway obstruction, improvement was nevertheless noted in the latter group.

Continue to: Physicians should also note...

Physicians should also note the landmark trial of azithromycin in severe, smoking-­associated COPD, which found a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life (NNT = 3, to prevent 1 exacerbation).¹⁸

Case series. In a prospective case series (Level 2 study: prospective cohort), 163 primary care outpatients (adolescents and adults) who had acute wheezing illnesses or chronic asthma were evaluated for C pneumoniae infection by serologic testing.¹⁹ A subgroup of this cohort also had nasopharyngeal cultures tested for C pneumoniae.

Rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.

Twenty patients (12%) were given a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection defined by serology (n = 15), culture isolation (n = 3), or both (n = 2). Of the 20, 10 wheezed for the first time—6 of whom subsequently developed chronic asthma (n = 5) or chronic bronchitis (n = 1), with a serologic profile suggesting chronic infection. The other 10 patients who had a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection already had a diagnosis of chronic asthma. In patients with established chronic asthma, initial serologic findings suggested chronic, rather than acute, C pneumoniae infection.

Tx recommendations: When to consider azithromycin

Randomized⁷ and nonrandomized¹⁵ evidence supports treating severely uncontrolled or refractory asthma (strength of recommendation [SOR], B); no comparable randomized trials of azithromycin have been conducted for new-onset asthma (SOR, C). Consider prescribing empiric azithromycin for patients with new-onset asthma in the context of shared decision making about potential benefits, harms, and consequences of chronic asthma (SOR, C).

It is important to note that wheezing is frequently associated with uncomplicated acute bronchitis that resolves spontaneously without antibiotic treatment.¹¹ Azithromycin treatment for new-onset asthma should therefore be reserved for patients in whom apparent uncomplicated acute bronchitis fails to resolve after 3 to 6 months, and whose illness is diagnosable as asthma (see CASE 3).¹⁰

Continue to: Do biomarkers predict response?

 

 

Do biomarkers predict response?

Confirming C pneumoniae infection by bronchoscopy before beginning treatment has been recommended²⁰ but might be impractical; also, diagnostic testing for C pneumoniae is limited in availability and has potentially low sensitivity for diagnosing chronic deep lung infection.

So should you test for C pneumoniae biomarkers (or for biomarkers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, another atypical infection implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma²¹) before initiating treatment? Azithromycin has antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and potential antiviral properties.³ The body of evidence reviewed here indicates that the effects of macrolides on asthma might be, at least in part, antimicrobial. However, there is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.²² Therefore, infection biomarker testing as a decision aid cannot be recommended at this time (although future research might alter this ­recommendation).

Acute bronchitis and asthma-onset ­associated with an acute lower respiratory tract infection have been statistically associated with biomarkers of C pneumoniae infection.²³ However, C pneumoniae biomarkers are also prevalent in patients who have asthma that is not associated with an infectious onset.²³ Several other matters are worth noting:

• C pneumoniae-specific IgA²³ and IgE²⁴ are promising biomarkers that deserve further investigation.
• M pneumoniae infection has also been associated with asthma and a response to antibiotic therapy.^21,25
• Noneosinophilic severe asthma is another potential predictive characteristic.²⁶ The applicability of this biomarker to primary care practice is limited, however, by the invasive nature of bronchoscopy and by the uncertain validity of the diagnostic concept: There is no guarantee that dynamic inflammatory infiltrates remain stable over a lifetime. Furthermore, the AMAZES Trial⁷ reported that azithromycin benefit was comparable in eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma.

Potential for harm withlong-term macrolide use?

Controversies about the role of macrolides in asthma involve uncertainty about who might benefit from treatment and the potential harms of macrolides use (TABLE 1^27,28 and discussed below).²⁹

Adverse effects. The newer macrolides azithromycin and clarithromycin offer favorable safety and tolerability profiles, compared with those of older agents.³⁰ In clinical trials of azithromycin, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea) were usually mild or moderate and rarely (< 2% of subjects) required discontinuation of study medication.^31,32Clostridium difficile diarrhea has not been reported in any of the large clinical trials, in which thousands of patients received azithromycin for 3 to 12 months.^31,32 The major clinical “side ­effects” attributable to azithromycin are a significant reduction, compared to placebo, in acute respiratory illness, bronchitis, pneumonia, and sinusitis.^31,32

Continue to: Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance. Exposure of populations to macrolides can increase the percentage of macrolide-resistant bacterial respiratory pathogens³³; policies aimed at decreasing inappropriate macrolide prescribing can significantly lower that percentage.³⁴ There is no evidence, however, of any detrimental effects of macrolide resistance in individual patients receiving azithromycin.³³

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

In trials of azithromycin for the treatment of trachoma in Africa, significantly fewer deaths occurred in villages where subjects were treated with azithromycin than in villages where azithromycin therapy was not provided.³⁵ In the United States, weekly azithromycin treatment for 3 to 12 months in adults with heart disease resulted in fewer cases of acute bronchitis and pneumonia, compared with the placebo-treated groups^31,32; similar benefit for azithromycin was seen in children who had recurrent lung infection.^8,36

Nevertheless, concern over the spread of macrolide-resistant bacteria to the surrounding community is a concern and a possibility—and should be the subject of future research.

Sudden cardiac death. In a Medicaid population, the risk of sudden cardiac death from taking a macrolide among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease was 1 in ­every 4000 administrations.²⁷ Compare that level of risk with the 1 in 167 risk of an acute cardiovascular event in patients with COPD who start taking a LABA.³⁷ There is no detectable increase in the risk of sudden cardiac death when taking azithromycin in the general (ie, average cardiovascular risk) population^38,39 or when azithromycin is coadministered with a LABA.³

Hearing loss. An excess of 18 (< 1%) patients affected by hearing loss, 7 of whom sought medical attention, was reported among 2004 patients who had stable coronary artery disease and had been treated once weekly with azithromycin for 12 months (P = .02, compared with placebo).³² In another study, hearing test changes leading to discontinuation of azithromycin were detected in an excess of 32 (2.8%) of 1142 patients with COPD treated daily for 1 year.¹⁸

Continue to: Physicians who prescribe...

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

Drug–drug interactions. Azithromycin is free of the drug–drug interactions characteristic of conventional macrolides, such as clarithromycin.⁴⁰ Nevertheless:

• Caution is advised when giving azithromycin in conjunction with coumadin or theophylline.
• Giving azithromycin with antacids that contain aluminum or magnesium salts can reduce the rate, although not the extent, of the absorption of ­azithromycin.
• The serum concentration of azithromycin is markedly increased when it is given with nelfinavir.⁴⁰

Microbiome effects. The host microbiome can have a significant effect on the risk of asthma.² A cross-sectional study indicated that lower respiratory bacterial burden is greater in patients with asthma, compared with that of healthy control subjects, and correlates with bronchial hyperresponsiveness.⁴¹ Early colonization of the infant nasopharynx, particularly with Streptococcus spp, is a predictor of asthma risk.^42,43 Bacterial pathogens in the nasopharyngeal biome at the time of upper respiratory viral infection are significant determinants of risk for the spread of infection to the lower airways, suggesting that these microorganisms contribute to the risk of persistent asthma.⁴¹

In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma qualityof-life outcomes.

Investigators have speculated that, rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.^42,43 Recently, it was shown in a randomized trial that azithromycin induced a perturbation in the gut microbiota of children 14 days after randomization, although the drug did not have a long-lasting effect on the composition of gut microbiota.⁴⁴

Consider a trial of azithromycin for patients who have new-onset asthma.

What about cost?

Inhaled corticosteroids and combination formulations of an ICS and a LABA are expensive and must be taken for the long term. A 3-month course of generic azithromycin—comparable to what was used in the OL subgroup of AZMATICS¹⁵—costs about as much as 1 ICS and LABA combination inhaler. Using published results,^15,45 a pilot cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with persistent asthma compared doubling the ICS dosage, adding salmeterol, adding tiotropium, or prescribing 3 months of azithromycin. In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost-effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma quality-of-life outcomes.* However, reliable cost-effectiveness analyses require more, and better, evidence.

Continue to: Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

 

 

Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

Table 2^7,15 outlines selected long-term (≥ 3 months) macrolide dosing schedules in the management of asthma. Consider a trial of azithromycin for your patients

• whose asthma is refractory (poorly controlled persistent asthma), despite treatment with either an ICS and LABA combination or an ICS and long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination; and
• who have new-onset asthma.

At press time, the European Respiratory Journal published a patient-level meta-analysis that demonstrates that maintenance use of azithromycin decreases exacerbations in adults with asthma. To learn more, go to https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/54/5/1901381

Last, there is no evidence for or against prescribing azithromycin for patients who have chronic asthma that is not refractory but is uncontrolled because they are not being treated according to guidelines.

*Data available from the author upon request. See “Correspondence,” at end of article.

CORRESPONDENCE
David L. Hahn, MD, MS, Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, 1100 Delaplaine Court, Madison, WI 53715; [email protected].

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.^1,2 Arising from that hypothesis, macrolide antibiotics have been the subject of clinical trials and other studies to determine whether these drugs are efficacious in the long-term management of asthma in adults and children. Macrolides might also have immunomodulatory and antiviral properties that can benefit patients with asthma.³

In vitro laboratory and in vivo animal models support the biologic plausibility that chronic infection is a potential cause of asthma.

This article looks at the evidence and clinical scenarios for the use of macrolides in asthma, provides proposed dosing schedules, and reviews associated concerns, including adverse effects, risk of bacterial resistance, and cost.

3 cases to consider

CASE 1 Paul D developed severe, refractory asthma at 30 years of age after an acute respiratory illness. At age 40, he was treated with 14 weekly doses of azithromycin. His asthma resolved slowly over 12 months.

Outcome. Mr. D has remained free of symptoms of ­asthma for more than 20 years.

CASE 2 Casey K developed severe wheezing at 18 months of age after an acute respiratory illness. Refractory asthma symptoms persisted until 6 years of age, at which time he was given 12 weekly doses of azithromycin. Asthma symptoms gradually resolved.

Outcome. Casey was able to resume normal physical ­activities, including competitive swimming.

CASE 3 Amy S, who had no history of respiratory problems, presented at 30 years of age with a 3-month history of wheezing and dyspnea after an acute respiratory illness. She was treated symptomatically with bronchodilators; wheezing failed to resolve. After 6 months of persistent wheezing that significantly affected her exercise capacity, Ms. S was given a diagnosis of persistent asthma and received 12 weekly doses of azithromycin.

[polldaddy:10475438]

Continue to: Outcome...

Outcome. Ms. S’s symptoms resolved completely within months.

Evidence of benefit of macrolides in asthma

These 3 cases, taken from my practice (but with names changed), demonstrate the therapeutic potential of macrolide antibiotics for patients with asthma under specific clinical circumstances. The cases are referenced again in the following examination of the literature on macrolides for asthma

Meta-analysis. Reiter et al⁴ performed a meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials of macrolides for long-term management of asthma in children and adults. Prolonged treatment was defined as > 3 weeks of continuous administration of a macrolide. The pooled effect of macrolides on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) was not significant; however, a significant effect on peak expiratory flow, symptom scores, quality of life, and airway hyperreactivity was observed.

Comment: The study’s authors concluded: “Macrolides may therefore be beneficial as adjunct asthma therapy. Future trials, focusing on long-term safety and effectiveness, should use standardized outcomes and ­procedures.”

Cochrane meta-analysis. Kew et al⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 23 studies of macrolides for managing chronic asthma for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In their review, they reported

• no significant effects of macrolides on asthma exacerbations, asthma control, quality of life, and rescue medication use; and
• significant effects of macrolides for asthma symptoms and FEV₁.

Continue to: Two within-study subgroup...

Some patients with asthma who respond to azithromycin experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment.

Two within-study subgroup analyses showed a possible benefit of macrolides for non-­eosinophilic asthma, defined by a predominance of neutrophils in a bronchoalveolar lavage specimen. Kew et al⁵ noted that (1) most of the evidence examined in the review was of low quality and (2) inclusion criteria, interventions, and outcomes were highly variable.

Comment: The validity of a meta-analysis depends on the validity and similarity of underlying trials. Both meta-analyses just described were characterized by (1) grouping trials of older and newer macrolides and (2) significant selection bias in the underlying trials.

Selection bias is prevalent in asthma research and is a major contributor to uncertainty: Randomized controlled trials upon which guideline treatments are based have systematically excluded > 90% of people with asthma.⁶ Exclusions include past or current smoking, the asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome, severe asthma, and acute respiratory illness; these exclusion criteria have also been applied to studies of macrolides. Importantly, patients in the excluded groups are probably those most likely to respond to a macrolide.² Pragmatic effectiveness studies (broad eligibility criteria, adequate duration of azithromycin treatment, a posttreatment observation period, and pre-specified biomarker subgroup analyses) have been recommended to address the hypothesis of what has been termed infectious asthma.²

Inconsistent evidence, the generally poor quality of underlying studies, and uncertainty about which subgroup(s) of asthma patients might benefit all contribute to a strength of recommendation of “B” for treating asthma with macrolides. Two recent randomized trials^7,8 that were not included in the cited meta-analyses, along with other evidence,² point to 2 groups of patients who are candidates for a trial of azithromycin: those with severe refractory asthma and those with new-onset asthma.

Clinical trial in adults. Gibson et al⁷ conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin 500 mg 3 times a week or placebo for 1 year in 420 adults who had uncontrolled persistent asthma despite taking medium-to-high doses of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus a long-acting β agonist (LABA) (the AMAZES [Asthma and Macrolides: The Azithromycin Efficacy and Safety] trial; Level 1 study). The mean baseline asthma control questionnaire score was 1.5, equivalent to an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score* of 15.⁹

Continue to: Azithromycin reduced the frequency...

Azithromycin reduced the frequency of asthma exacerbations (to 1.07 per patient–year for azithromycin, compared with 1.86 per patient–year for placebo [incidence rate ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.74]). The percentage of patients experiencing at least 1 exacerbation was reduced with azithromycin treatment (61% of patients in the placebo group experienced ≥ 1 exacerbation, compared with 44% in the azithromycin group [P < .0001; number needed to treat = 6]). Asthma quality of life was also improved by azithromycin (P = .001).

There was no significant difference between azithromycin and placebo in the overall rate of serious adverse events. Diarrhea that did not require treatment discontinuation was more common in patients treated with azithromycin (34%) than in the placebo group (19%). There was no posttreatment observation period to assess whether these azithromycin benefits waned or persisted after treatment was stopped.

Other evidence¹⁰ indicates that at least some patients who respond to azithromycin will experience persistent improvement after antibiotic treatment is completed (see CASE 1).

Pediatric clinical trial. Stokholm et al⁸ performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin in children 1 to 3 years of age who had been given a diagnosis of recurrent asthma-like symptoms (Level 1 study). Treatment was a 3-day course of azithromycin oral solution, 10 mg/kg/d, or placebo. Random allocation was performed for 158 asthma-like episodes in 72 children.

Azithromycin reduced the wheezing episode to a mean duration of 3.4 days, compared with 7.7 days for placebo (risk reduction = 63.3%; 95% CI, 56%-69.3% [P < .0001]). Effect size increased with early initiation of treatment: ie, an 83% reduction in episode duration was seen when treatment was initiated before Day 6 of the episode, compared with a 36% reduction if treatment was initiated on or after Day 6 (P < .0001).

Continue to: No differences between...

No differences between the randomized groups were observed in clinical adverse ­effects.

Comment: The brief course of azithromycin provided to patients in this trial did not have a significant impact on time to next episode of troublesome lung symptoms in ­individual children. Previous clinical observations have suggested that a longer duration of treatment (3-6 months) might be required to achieve lasting improvement or remission in selected patients with asthma (see CASE 2).^10,11 The short-term benefit of azithromycin for acute wheezing is limited to children: Two comparable acute dosing trials in adults have shown little¹² or no¹³ short-term benefit; however, these negative findings have been ­hypothesized to be the result of selection bias.¹⁴

Other evidence is worth examining

Other studies not included in the meta-­analyses of randomized controlled trials provide additional evidence to support a recommendation of a trial of azithromycin in patients with severe, refractory, or new-onset asthma.

Nonrandomized controlled evidence. AZMATICS (AZithroMycin/Asthma Trial In Community Settings)¹⁵ is the sole randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of long-term azithromycin that included a 9-month posttreatment observation period. Seventy-five participants were randomized to receive a loading dose of 600 mg of azithromycin or placebo once daily for 3 days in Week 1. They then received either azithromycin 600 mg or placebo once weekly for 11 weeks. Posttreatment observation was performed until 48 weeks after randomization.

However, many eligible subjects, whom the principal investigator believed were ­ideal candidates for randomization, declined randomization because they did not want to risk receiving placebo. To accommodate those patients, the protocol was amended to include an open-label (OL) azithromycin arm, in which each participant’s personal physician prescribed azithromycin 750 mg for 11 weeks after a loading dose¹⁶ (OL cohort only, Level 2 study: controlled, nonrandomized, ­nonblinded). The OL group had (1) a higher baseline prevalence of severe, persistent asthma (32%) than the randomized group (8%) (P = .012); and (2) worse asthma quality of life than the randomized patients (P = .023). The OL group represented selection bias attributable to patient preference.

Continue to: The less severely...

The less severely affected randomized group of the trial did not exhibit significant effects attributable to azithromycin. The more severely affected OL cohort demonstrated significant, and large, azithromycin treatment effects for asthma symptoms, asthma quality of life, and asthma control (P < .05 for both groups; number needed to treat [NNT] = 3) that persisted during the posttreatment observation period.

There is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.

Comment: The authors concluded: “Pending further randomized trials and given the relative safety of azithromycin and the significant disease burden from severe, refractory asthma, prescribing prolonged azithromycin therapy to patients with uncontrolled asthma may be considered by managing clinicians, particularly for patients who have failed to respond to conventional treatment and as an alternative to instituting immunomodulatory agents.”¹⁵

Before-and-after trial. Forty-six patients with moderate or severe chronic, persistent, stable asthma were selected as a cohort unlikely to experience spontaneous remission (ie, patients in exacerbation were excluded) (Level 2 study: prospective cohort).¹⁷ Subjects were treated for a median of 4 weeks (range, 3 to 9 weeks) with oral doxycycline, 100 mg bid; azithromycin, 1000 mg, once weekly; or erythromycin, 1000 mg/d in divided doses. Average duration of posttreatment follow-up was 6 months. All subjects were positive for antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.

Four patients with diagnosed acuteC pneumoniae respiratory infection developed chronic asthma, which disappeared in each case after treatment. Of the other 42 seroreactive patients who were treated a mean of 6 years after they developed chronic asthma, 21 had either complete remission of asthma symptoms (n = 3) or major persistent clinical improvement (n = 18). Clinical improvement was more likely to occur in patients with early disease (P = .01) and before development of fixed airway obstruction (P < .01).

These results are consistent with the hypothesis that chronic infection of the lower respiratory tract contributes to the development and progression of asthma.¹⁷ Although clinical improvement was more likely in early asthma compared with asthma with fixed airway obstruction, improvement was nevertheless noted in the latter group.

Continue to: Physicians should also note...

Physicians should also note the landmark trial of azithromycin in severe, smoking-­associated COPD, which found a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life (NNT = 3, to prevent 1 exacerbation).¹⁸

Case series. In a prospective case series (Level 2 study: prospective cohort), 163 primary care outpatients (adolescents and adults) who had acute wheezing illnesses or chronic asthma were evaluated for C pneumoniae infection by serologic testing.¹⁹ A subgroup of this cohort also had nasopharyngeal cultures tested for C pneumoniae.

Rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.

Twenty patients (12%) were given a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection defined by serology (n = 15), culture isolation (n = 3), or both (n = 2). Of the 20, 10 wheezed for the first time—6 of whom subsequently developed chronic asthma (n = 5) or chronic bronchitis (n = 1), with a serologic profile suggesting chronic infection. The other 10 patients who had a diagnosis of C pneumoniae infection already had a diagnosis of chronic asthma. In patients with established chronic asthma, initial serologic findings suggested chronic, rather than acute, C pneumoniae infection.

Tx recommendations: When to consider azithromycin

Randomized⁷ and nonrandomized¹⁵ evidence supports treating severely uncontrolled or refractory asthma (strength of recommendation [SOR], B); no comparable randomized trials of azithromycin have been conducted for new-onset asthma (SOR, C). Consider prescribing empiric azithromycin for patients with new-onset asthma in the context of shared decision making about potential benefits, harms, and consequences of chronic asthma (SOR, C).

It is important to note that wheezing is frequently associated with uncomplicated acute bronchitis that resolves spontaneously without antibiotic treatment.¹¹ Azithromycin treatment for new-onset asthma should therefore be reserved for patients in whom apparent uncomplicated acute bronchitis fails to resolve after 3 to 6 months, and whose illness is diagnosable as asthma (see CASE 3).¹⁰

Continue to: Do biomarkers predict response?

 

 

Do biomarkers predict response?

Confirming C pneumoniae infection by bronchoscopy before beginning treatment has been recommended²⁰ but might be impractical; also, diagnostic testing for C pneumoniae is limited in availability and has potentially low sensitivity for diagnosing chronic deep lung infection.

So should you test for C pneumoniae biomarkers (or for biomarkers of Mycoplasma pneumoniae, another atypical infection implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma²¹) before initiating treatment? Azithromycin has antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and potential antiviral properties.³ The body of evidence reviewed here indicates that the effects of macrolides on asthma might be, at least in part, antimicrobial. However, there is no direct evidence that the benefit of azithromycin in asthma is limited to patients who have positive infection biomarkers.²² Therefore, infection biomarker testing as a decision aid cannot be recommended at this time (although future research might alter this ­recommendation).

Acute bronchitis and asthma-onset ­associated with an acute lower respiratory tract infection have been statistically associated with biomarkers of C pneumoniae infection.²³ However, C pneumoniae biomarkers are also prevalent in patients who have asthma that is not associated with an infectious onset.²³ Several other matters are worth noting:

• C pneumoniae-specific IgA²³ and IgE²⁴ are promising biomarkers that deserve further investigation.
• M pneumoniae infection has also been associated with asthma and a response to antibiotic therapy.^21,25
• Noneosinophilic severe asthma is another potential predictive characteristic.²⁶ The applicability of this biomarker to primary care practice is limited, however, by the invasive nature of bronchoscopy and by the uncertain validity of the diagnostic concept: There is no guarantee that dynamic inflammatory infiltrates remain stable over a lifetime. Furthermore, the AMAZES Trial⁷ reported that azithromycin benefit was comparable in eosinophilic and noneosinophilic asthma.

Potential for harm withlong-term macrolide use?

Controversies about the role of macrolides in asthma involve uncertainty about who might benefit from treatment and the potential harms of macrolides use (TABLE 1^27,28 and discussed below).²⁹

Adverse effects. The newer macrolides azithromycin and clarithromycin offer favorable safety and tolerability profiles, compared with those of older agents.³⁰ In clinical trials of azithromycin, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea) were usually mild or moderate and rarely (< 2% of subjects) required discontinuation of study medication.^31,32Clostridium difficile diarrhea has not been reported in any of the large clinical trials, in which thousands of patients received azithromycin for 3 to 12 months.^31,32 The major clinical “side ­effects” attributable to azithromycin are a significant reduction, compared to placebo, in acute respiratory illness, bronchitis, pneumonia, and sinusitis.^31,32

Continue to: Antibiotic resistance

Antibiotic resistance. Exposure of populations to macrolides can increase the percentage of macrolide-resistant bacterial respiratory pathogens³³; policies aimed at decreasing inappropriate macrolide prescribing can significantly lower that percentage.³⁴ There is no evidence, however, of any detrimental effects of macrolide resistance in individual patients receiving azithromycin.³³

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

In trials of azithromycin for the treatment of trachoma in Africa, significantly fewer deaths occurred in villages where subjects were treated with azithromycin than in villages where azithromycin therapy was not provided.³⁵ In the United States, weekly azithromycin treatment for 3 to 12 months in adults with heart disease resulted in fewer cases of acute bronchitis and pneumonia, compared with the placebo-treated groups^31,32; similar benefit for azithromycin was seen in children who had recurrent lung infection.^8,36

Nevertheless, concern over the spread of macrolide-resistant bacteria to the surrounding community is a concern and a possibility—and should be the subject of future research.

Sudden cardiac death. In a Medicaid population, the risk of sudden cardiac death from taking a macrolide among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease was 1 in ­every 4000 administrations.²⁷ Compare that level of risk with the 1 in 167 risk of an acute cardiovascular event in patients with COPD who start taking a LABA.³⁷ There is no detectable increase in the risk of sudden cardiac death when taking azithromycin in the general (ie, average cardiovascular risk) population^38,39 or when azithromycin is coadministered with a LABA.³

Hearing loss. An excess of 18 (< 1%) patients affected by hearing loss, 7 of whom sought medical attention, was reported among 2004 patients who had stable coronary artery disease and had been treated once weekly with azithromycin for 12 months (P = .02, compared with placebo).³² In another study, hearing test changes leading to discontinuation of azithromycin were detected in an excess of 32 (2.8%) of 1142 patients with COPD treated daily for 1 year.¹⁸

Continue to: Physicians who prescribe...

Physicians who prescribe long-term azithromycin should instruct patients to report any hearing loss.

Drug–drug interactions. Azithromycin is free of the drug–drug interactions characteristic of conventional macrolides, such as clarithromycin.⁴⁰ Nevertheless:

• Caution is advised when giving azithromycin in conjunction with coumadin or theophylline.
• Giving azithromycin with antacids that contain aluminum or magnesium salts can reduce the rate, although not the extent, of the absorption of ­azithromycin.
• The serum concentration of azithromycin is markedly increased when it is given with nelfinavir.⁴⁰

Microbiome effects. The host microbiome can have a significant effect on the risk of asthma.² A cross-sectional study indicated that lower respiratory bacterial burden is greater in patients with asthma, compared with that of healthy control subjects, and correlates with bronchial hyperresponsiveness.⁴¹ Early colonization of the infant nasopharynx, particularly with Streptococcus spp, is a predictor of asthma risk.^42,43 Bacterial pathogens in the nasopharyngeal biome at the time of upper respiratory viral infection are significant determinants of risk for the spread of infection to the lower airways, suggesting that these microorganisms contribute to the risk of persistent asthma.⁴¹

In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma qualityof-life outcomes.

Investigators have speculated that, rather than increasing the risk of asthma by disrupting the “healthy” microbiome, azithromycin might be helpful in treating an “unhealthy” microbiome.^42,43 Recently, it was shown in a randomized trial that azithromycin induced a perturbation in the gut microbiota of children 14 days after randomization, although the drug did not have a long-lasting effect on the composition of gut microbiota.⁴⁴

Consider a trial of azithromycin for patients who have new-onset asthma.

What about cost?

Inhaled corticosteroids and combination formulations of an ICS and a LABA are expensive and must be taken for the long term. A 3-month course of generic azithromycin—comparable to what was used in the OL subgroup of AZMATICS¹⁵—costs about as much as 1 ICS and LABA combination inhaler. Using published results,^15,45 a pilot cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with persistent asthma compared doubling the ICS dosage, adding salmeterol, adding tiotropium, or prescribing 3 months of azithromycin. In the long run, azithromycin was 10 to 20 times as cost-effective as the other 3 therapeutic options for improving asthma quality-of-life outcomes.* However, reliable cost-effectiveness analyses require more, and better, evidence.

Continue to: Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

 

 

Recommendations to reflect on for your practice

Table 2^7,15 outlines selected long-term (≥ 3 months) macrolide dosing schedules in the management of asthma. Consider a trial of azithromycin for your patients

• whose asthma is refractory (poorly controlled persistent asthma), despite treatment with either an ICS and LABA combination or an ICS and long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination; and
• who have new-onset asthma.

At press time, the European Respiratory Journal published a patient-level meta-analysis that demonstrates that maintenance use of azithromycin decreases exacerbations in adults with asthma. To learn more, go to https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/54/5/1901381

Last, there is no evidence for or against prescribing azithromycin for patients who have chronic asthma that is not refractory but is uncontrolled because they are not being treated according to guidelines.

*Data available from the author upon request. See “Correspondence,” at end of article.

CORRESPONDENCE
David L. Hahn, MD, MS, Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, 1100 Delaplaine Court, Madison, WI 53715; [email protected].

It’s been a decade since flu activity levels were this high this early in the season.

For the week ending Nov. 30, outpatient visits for influenza-like illness reached 3.5% of all visits to health care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Dec. 6. That is the highest pre-December rate since the pandemic of 2009-2010, when the rate peaked at 7.7% in mid-October, CDC data show.

For the last week of November, eight states and Puerto Rico reported activity levels at the high point of the CDC’s 1-10 scale, which is at least five more states than any of the past five flu seasons. Three of the last five seasons had no states at level 10 this early in the season.

Another 4 states at levels 8 and 9 put a total of 13 jurisdictions in the “high” range of flu activity, with another 14 states in the “moderate” range of levels 6 and 7. Geographically speaking, 24 jurisdictions are experiencing regional or widespread activity, which is up from the 15 reported last week, the CDC’s influenza division said.

The hospitalization rate to date for the 2019-2020 season – 2.7 per 100,000 population – is “similar to what has been seen at this time during other recent seasons,” the CDC said.

One influenza-related pediatric death was reported during the week ending Nov. 30, which brings the total for the season to six, according to the CDC report.

[email protected]

It’s been a decade since flu activity levels were this high this early in the season.

For the week ending Nov. 30, outpatient visits for influenza-like illness reached 3.5% of all visits to health care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Dec. 6. That is the highest pre-December rate since the pandemic of 2009-2010, when the rate peaked at 7.7% in mid-October, CDC data show.

For the last week of November, eight states and Puerto Rico reported activity levels at the high point of the CDC’s 1-10 scale, which is at least five more states than any of the past five flu seasons. Three of the last five seasons had no states at level 10 this early in the season.

Another 4 states at levels 8 and 9 put a total of 13 jurisdictions in the “high” range of flu activity, with another 14 states in the “moderate” range of levels 6 and 7. Geographically speaking, 24 jurisdictions are experiencing regional or widespread activity, which is up from the 15 reported last week, the CDC’s influenza division said.

The hospitalization rate to date for the 2019-2020 season – 2.7 per 100,000 population – is “similar to what has been seen at this time during other recent seasons,” the CDC said.

One influenza-related pediatric death was reported during the week ending Nov. 30, which brings the total for the season to six, according to the CDC report.

[email protected]

It’s been a decade since flu activity levels were this high this early in the season.

For the week ending Nov. 30, outpatient visits for influenza-like illness reached 3.5% of all visits to health care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Dec. 6. That is the highest pre-December rate since the pandemic of 2009-2010, when the rate peaked at 7.7% in mid-October, CDC data show.

For the last week of November, eight states and Puerto Rico reported activity levels at the high point of the CDC’s 1-10 scale, which is at least five more states than any of the past five flu seasons. Three of the last five seasons had no states at level 10 this early in the season.

Another 4 states at levels 8 and 9 put a total of 13 jurisdictions in the “high” range of flu activity, with another 14 states in the “moderate” range of levels 6 and 7. Geographically speaking, 24 jurisdictions are experiencing regional or widespread activity, which is up from the 15 reported last week, the CDC’s influenza division said.

The hospitalization rate to date for the 2019-2020 season – 2.7 per 100,000 population – is “similar to what has been seen at this time during other recent seasons,” the CDC said.

One influenza-related pediatric death was reported during the week ending Nov. 30, which brings the total for the season to six, according to the CDC report.

[email protected]

After only 8 weeks, the 2019-2020 influenza season already has made itself noteworthy.

For the week ending Nov. 23, there were five states, along with Puerto Rico, at the highest level of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 1-10 scale of flu activity. That’s more than any year since 2012, including the pandemic season of 2017-2018, according to CDC data, and may suggest either an early peak or the beginning of a particularly bad winter.

“Nationally, ILI [influenza-like illness] activity has been at or above baseline for 3 weeks; however, the amount of influenza activity across the country varies with the south and parts of the west seeing elevated activity while other parts of the country are still seeing low activity,” the CDC’s influenza division said in its weekly FluView report.

The five highest-activity states – Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas – are all at level 10, and they join two others – South Carolina and Tennessee, which are at level 8 – in the “high” range from 8-10 on the ILI activity scale; Puerto Rico also is at level 10. ILI is defined as “fever (temperature of 100° F [37.8° C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza,” the CDC said.

The activity scale is based on the percentage of outpatient visits for ILI in each state, which is reported to the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet) each week. The national rate for the week ending Nov. 23 was 2.9%, which is above the new-for-this-season baseline rate of 2.4%. For the three previous flu seasons, the national baseline was 2.2%, having been raised from its previous level of 2.1% in 2015-2016, CDC data show.

The peak month of flu activity occurs most often in February – 15 times from 1982-1983 to 2017-2018 – but there were seven peaks in December and six each in January and March over that time period, along with one peak each in October and November, the CDC said. The October peak occurred during the H1N1 pandemic year of 2009, when the national outpatient ILI rate climbed to just over 7.7%.
 

[email protected]

After only 8 weeks, the 2019-2020 influenza season already has made itself noteworthy.

For the week ending Nov. 23, there were five states, along with Puerto Rico, at the highest level of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 1-10 scale of flu activity. That’s more than any year since 2012, including the pandemic season of 2017-2018, according to CDC data, and may suggest either an early peak or the beginning of a particularly bad winter.

“Nationally, ILI [influenza-like illness] activity has been at or above baseline for 3 weeks; however, the amount of influenza activity across the country varies with the south and parts of the west seeing elevated activity while other parts of the country are still seeing low activity,” the CDC’s influenza division said in its weekly FluView report.

The five highest-activity states – Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas – are all at level 10, and they join two others – South Carolina and Tennessee, which are at level 8 – in the “high” range from 8-10 on the ILI activity scale; Puerto Rico also is at level 10. ILI is defined as “fever (temperature of 100° F [37.8° C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza,” the CDC said.

The activity scale is based on the percentage of outpatient visits for ILI in each state, which is reported to the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet) each week. The national rate for the week ending Nov. 23 was 2.9%, which is above the new-for-this-season baseline rate of 2.4%. For the three previous flu seasons, the national baseline was 2.2%, having been raised from its previous level of 2.1% in 2015-2016, CDC data show.

The peak month of flu activity occurs most often in February – 15 times from 1982-1983 to 2017-2018 – but there were seven peaks in December and six each in January and March over that time period, along with one peak each in October and November, the CDC said. The October peak occurred during the H1N1 pandemic year of 2009, when the national outpatient ILI rate climbed to just over 7.7%.
 

[email protected]

After only 8 weeks, the 2019-2020 influenza season already has made itself noteworthy.

For the week ending Nov. 23, there were five states, along with Puerto Rico, at the highest level of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 1-10 scale of flu activity. That’s more than any year since 2012, including the pandemic season of 2017-2018, according to CDC data, and may suggest either an early peak or the beginning of a particularly bad winter.

“Nationally, ILI [influenza-like illness] activity has been at or above baseline for 3 weeks; however, the amount of influenza activity across the country varies with the south and parts of the west seeing elevated activity while other parts of the country are still seeing low activity,” the CDC’s influenza division said in its weekly FluView report.

The five highest-activity states – Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas – are all at level 10, and they join two others – South Carolina and Tennessee, which are at level 8 – in the “high” range from 8-10 on the ILI activity scale; Puerto Rico also is at level 10. ILI is defined as “fever (temperature of 100° F [37.8° C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza,” the CDC said.

The activity scale is based on the percentage of outpatient visits for ILI in each state, which is reported to the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet) each week. The national rate for the week ending Nov. 23 was 2.9%, which is above the new-for-this-season baseline rate of 2.4%. For the three previous flu seasons, the national baseline was 2.2%, having been raised from its previous level of 2.1% in 2015-2016, CDC data show.

The peak month of flu activity occurs most often in February – 15 times from 1982-1983 to 2017-2018 – but there were seven peaks in December and six each in January and March over that time period, along with one peak each in October and November, the CDC said. The October peak occurred during the H1N1 pandemic year of 2009, when the national outpatient ILI rate climbed to just over 7.7%.
 

[email protected]

A study has found that consistent occupational exposure to disinfectants is associated with an increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

“Clinicians should be aware of this new risk factor and systematically look for sources of exposure to cleaning products and disinfectants in addition to other occupational exposures in patients with COPD,” wrote Orianne Dumas, PhD, of the Université de Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines (France) and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if regular use of disinfectants had a negative impact on respiratory health, the researchers analyzed data from 73,262 active female nurses who had no history of COPD and completed questionnaires every 2 years for the Nurses’ Health Study II. Their mean age at baseline was 54.7. Exposure to commonly used disinfectants was evaluated by a job-task-exposure matrix (JTEM) specific to nurses.

Between 2009 and 2015, 582 nurses reported incident physician-diagnosed COPD. Weekly use of disinfectants was associated with COPD incidence (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.59). Additional associations were found in nurses who used disinfectants to clean surfaces (AHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.68) and to clean medical instruments (AHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61). High-level exposure to certain disinfectants – including glutaraldehyde, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds – were significantly associated with increased risk of COPD incidence.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the JTEM only assessing exposure to seven of the major cleaning products commonly used in health care. In addition, detailed data on exposure to disinfectants was not available before 2009. However, they added that, because the study has been ongoing since 1989, it could be expected that women who had been nurses for decades had “already accumulated a long history of exposure.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Five of the authors reported receiving grants from the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); one additional author reported being a consultant on a NIOSH grant and receiving personal fees from a health care system. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Dumas O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13563.

A study has found that consistent occupational exposure to disinfectants is associated with an increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

“Clinicians should be aware of this new risk factor and systematically look for sources of exposure to cleaning products and disinfectants in addition to other occupational exposures in patients with COPD,” wrote Orianne Dumas, PhD, of the Université de Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines (France) and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if regular use of disinfectants had a negative impact on respiratory health, the researchers analyzed data from 73,262 active female nurses who had no history of COPD and completed questionnaires every 2 years for the Nurses’ Health Study II. Their mean age at baseline was 54.7. Exposure to commonly used disinfectants was evaluated by a job-task-exposure matrix (JTEM) specific to nurses.

Between 2009 and 2015, 582 nurses reported incident physician-diagnosed COPD. Weekly use of disinfectants was associated with COPD incidence (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.59). Additional associations were found in nurses who used disinfectants to clean surfaces (AHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.68) and to clean medical instruments (AHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61). High-level exposure to certain disinfectants – including glutaraldehyde, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds – were significantly associated with increased risk of COPD incidence.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the JTEM only assessing exposure to seven of the major cleaning products commonly used in health care. In addition, detailed data on exposure to disinfectants was not available before 2009. However, they added that, because the study has been ongoing since 1989, it could be expected that women who had been nurses for decades had “already accumulated a long history of exposure.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Five of the authors reported receiving grants from the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); one additional author reported being a consultant on a NIOSH grant and receiving personal fees from a health care system. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Dumas O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13563.

A study has found that consistent occupational exposure to disinfectants is associated with an increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

“Clinicians should be aware of this new risk factor and systematically look for sources of exposure to cleaning products and disinfectants in addition to other occupational exposures in patients with COPD,” wrote Orianne Dumas, PhD, of the Université de Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines (France) and coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if regular use of disinfectants had a negative impact on respiratory health, the researchers analyzed data from 73,262 active female nurses who had no history of COPD and completed questionnaires every 2 years for the Nurses’ Health Study II. Their mean age at baseline was 54.7. Exposure to commonly used disinfectants was evaluated by a job-task-exposure matrix (JTEM) specific to nurses.

Between 2009 and 2015, 582 nurses reported incident physician-diagnosed COPD. Weekly use of disinfectants was associated with COPD incidence (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.59). Additional associations were found in nurses who used disinfectants to clean surfaces (AHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.68) and to clean medical instruments (AHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61). High-level exposure to certain disinfectants – including glutaraldehyde, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds – were significantly associated with increased risk of COPD incidence.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the JTEM only assessing exposure to seven of the major cleaning products commonly used in health care. In addition, detailed data on exposure to disinfectants was not available before 2009. However, they added that, because the study has been ongoing since 1989, it could be expected that women who had been nurses for decades had “already accumulated a long history of exposure.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Five of the authors reported receiving grants from the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); one additional author reported being a consultant on a NIOSH grant and receiving personal fees from a health care system. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Dumas O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 18. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13563.

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

Infants born in a country with no endemic measles no longer received adequate protection against the disease from maternal antibodies when they were aged 6 months, according to new research.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

In fact, most of the 196 infants’ maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics.

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The findings are not surprising for a setting in which measles has been eliminated and align with results from past research, Huong Q. McLean, PhD, MPH, of the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta wrote in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2541).

However, this susceptibility prior to receiving the MMR has taken on a new significance more recently, Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein suggested.

“In light of increasing measles outbreaks during the past year reaching levels not recorded in the United States since 1992 and increased measles elsewhere, coupled with the risk of severe illness in infants, there is increased concern regarding the protection of infants against measles,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Science and colleagues tested serum samples from 196 term infants, all under 12 months old, for antibodies against measles. The sera had been previously collected at a single tertiary care center in Ontario for clinical testing and then stored. Measles has been eliminated in Canada since 1998.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days); 2 months (61-89 days); 3 months (90-119 days); 4 months; 5 months; 6-9 months; and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL) , and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein noted in their editorial.

They discussed the rationale for various changes in the recommended schedule for measles immunization, based on changes in epidemiology of the disease and improved understanding of the immune response to vaccination since the vaccine became available in 1963. Then they posed the question of whether the recommendation should be revised again.

“Ideally, the schedule should minimize the risk of measles and its complications and optimize vaccine-induced protection,” Dr. McLean and Dr. Orenstein wrote.

They argued that the evidence cannot currently support changing the first MMR dose to a younger age because measles incidence in the United States remains extremely low outside of the extraordinary outbreaks in 2014 and 2019. Further, infants under 12 months of age make up less than 15% of measles cases during outbreaks, and unvaccinated people make up more than 70% of cases.

Rather, they stated, this new study emphasizes the importance of following the current schedule, with consideration of an earlier schedule only warranted during outbreaks.

“Health care providers must work to maintain high levels of coverage with 2 doses of MMR among vaccine-eligible populations and minimize pockets of susceptibility to prevent transmission to infants and prevent reestablishment of endemic transmission,” they concluded.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures. The editorialists had no external funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Science M et al. Pediatrics. 2019 Nov 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-0630.

Stephen Hahn, MD, President Trump’s pick to head the Food and Drug Administration, faced questions from both sides of the aisle on youth vaping, but came up short when asked to commit to taking action, particularly on banning flavored vaping products.

Speaking at a Nov. 20 confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Dr. Hahn said that youth vaping and e-cigarette use is “an important, urgent crisis in this country. I do not want to see another generation of Americans become addicted to tobacco and nicotine and I believe that we need to take aggressive to stop that.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash), the committee’s ranking member, asked Dr. Hahn whether he would work to finalize a ban flavored e-cigarette products, first proposed but then backed away from, by the president in September.

“I understand that the final compliance policy is under consideration by the administration, and I look forward to their decision,” Dr. Hahn said. “I am not privy to those decision-making processes, but I very much agree and support that aggressive action needs to be taken to protect our children.”

When pressed by Sen. Murray as to whether he told President Trump that he disagrees with the decision to back away the proposed ban, Dr. Hahn revealed that he has “not had a conversation with the president.”

Dr. Hahn, a radiation oncologist who currently serves as chief medical executive at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, held firm to just coming up short of making that commitment when questioned by senators from both parties.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) warned Dr. Hahn that the playing of politics would be unlike anything he has seen and is already being played out in the lobbying of the administration to change its stance on flavored e-cigarette products, which can run counter to the science about the harmful effects of these products.

“The question is how you will balance those things in which you put forward,” Sen. Romney asked. “How you will deal with this issue is a pretty good test case for how you would deal with this issue on an ongoing basis on matters not just related to vaping.”

He also brought up President Trump’s September announcement on a flavor ban and the administration’s signaling they are moving away from a flavor ban. “Is the FDA, under your leadership, able and willing to take action which will protect our kids, whether or not the White House wants you to take that action?”

Dr. Hahn cited his pledge as a doctor to always put the patient first and reiterated that “I take that pledge very seriously and I think if you ask anyone who has worked with me, they will tell you that I have upheld that pledge.”

But he fell short of saying that he would take actions that would oppose the White House, saying only that “patients need to come first and the decisions that we make need to be guided by science and data, congruent with the law.”

When asked by Sen. Romney if he saw any reason for holding off on a flavor ban, given the evidence that suggests flavored e-cigarette products are the gateway to youths nicotine addiction, Dr. Hahn said that he has seen the same evidence and that it requires “bold action,” but did not commit to a flavor ban. “I will use science and data to guide the decisions if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, and I won’t back away from that.”

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) expressed concern about Dr. Hahn’s answers.

“I was less than happy with many of the answers you gave to members of this committee with regard to vaping and the potential ban on flavored e-cigarettes,” Sen. Jones said. “I think you can tell from the questions of so many senators that is one of the biggest issues that the United States Senate and Congress is facing right now. It is with this committee.”

Outside of vaping, much of the senators’ questioning was nonconfrontational, with questions spanning a gamut of issues facing the FDA.

Dr. Hahn offered his commitment to working with Congress to address drug shortages, noting nonspecifically that, “there are things that we can do to help.”

He also pledged to work with Congress on addressing patent reform to get more biosimilars to market in an effort to help drive down drug prices.

Regarding opioids, Dr. Hahn was asked about balancing the needs of those who legitimately need access to opioids against abuse and diversion.

“When I first went to medical school and started taking care of cancer patients, the teaching was that cancer patients should be treated liberally with opioids and that they don’t become addicted to pain medications,” he said. “We found out that wasn’t the case – and in some instances – with tragic consequences.”

He noted that pain therapy has evolved and that his institution now takes a multidisciplinary approach employing both opioid and nonopioid medications.

“I am very much a supporter of the multidisciplinary approach to treating pain,” he said. “I think it is something that we need to more of and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as commissioner of [FDA], I look forward to furthering the education efforts for providers and patients.”

Other areas he committed to included helping to improve clinical trial design for psychiatric medications and improving development of therapies for rare diseases.

Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said he plans to schedule a Dec. 3 vote to advance Dr. Hahn’s nomination to the full Senate for its consideration.

[email protected]

Stephen Hahn, MD, President Trump’s pick to head the Food and Drug Administration, faced questions from both sides of the aisle on youth vaping, but came up short when asked to commit to taking action, particularly on banning flavored vaping products.

Speaking at a Nov. 20 confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Dr. Hahn said that youth vaping and e-cigarette use is “an important, urgent crisis in this country. I do not want to see another generation of Americans become addicted to tobacco and nicotine and I believe that we need to take aggressive to stop that.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash), the committee’s ranking member, asked Dr. Hahn whether he would work to finalize a ban flavored e-cigarette products, first proposed but then backed away from, by the president in September.

“I understand that the final compliance policy is under consideration by the administration, and I look forward to their decision,” Dr. Hahn said. “I am not privy to those decision-making processes, but I very much agree and support that aggressive action needs to be taken to protect our children.”

When pressed by Sen. Murray as to whether he told President Trump that he disagrees with the decision to back away the proposed ban, Dr. Hahn revealed that he has “not had a conversation with the president.”

Dr. Hahn, a radiation oncologist who currently serves as chief medical executive at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, held firm to just coming up short of making that commitment when questioned by senators from both parties.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) warned Dr. Hahn that the playing of politics would be unlike anything he has seen and is already being played out in the lobbying of the administration to change its stance on flavored e-cigarette products, which can run counter to the science about the harmful effects of these products.

“The question is how you will balance those things in which you put forward,” Sen. Romney asked. “How you will deal with this issue is a pretty good test case for how you would deal with this issue on an ongoing basis on matters not just related to vaping.”

He also brought up President Trump’s September announcement on a flavor ban and the administration’s signaling they are moving away from a flavor ban. “Is the FDA, under your leadership, able and willing to take action which will protect our kids, whether or not the White House wants you to take that action?”

Dr. Hahn cited his pledge as a doctor to always put the patient first and reiterated that “I take that pledge very seriously and I think if you ask anyone who has worked with me, they will tell you that I have upheld that pledge.”

But he fell short of saying that he would take actions that would oppose the White House, saying only that “patients need to come first and the decisions that we make need to be guided by science and data, congruent with the law.”

When asked by Sen. Romney if he saw any reason for holding off on a flavor ban, given the evidence that suggests flavored e-cigarette products are the gateway to youths nicotine addiction, Dr. Hahn said that he has seen the same evidence and that it requires “bold action,” but did not commit to a flavor ban. “I will use science and data to guide the decisions if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, and I won’t back away from that.”

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) expressed concern about Dr. Hahn’s answers.

“I was less than happy with many of the answers you gave to members of this committee with regard to vaping and the potential ban on flavored e-cigarettes,” Sen. Jones said. “I think you can tell from the questions of so many senators that is one of the biggest issues that the United States Senate and Congress is facing right now. It is with this committee.”

Outside of vaping, much of the senators’ questioning was nonconfrontational, with questions spanning a gamut of issues facing the FDA.

Dr. Hahn offered his commitment to working with Congress to address drug shortages, noting nonspecifically that, “there are things that we can do to help.”

He also pledged to work with Congress on addressing patent reform to get more biosimilars to market in an effort to help drive down drug prices.

Regarding opioids, Dr. Hahn was asked about balancing the needs of those who legitimately need access to opioids against abuse and diversion.

“When I first went to medical school and started taking care of cancer patients, the teaching was that cancer patients should be treated liberally with opioids and that they don’t become addicted to pain medications,” he said. “We found out that wasn’t the case – and in some instances – with tragic consequences.”

He noted that pain therapy has evolved and that his institution now takes a multidisciplinary approach employing both opioid and nonopioid medications.

“I am very much a supporter of the multidisciplinary approach to treating pain,” he said. “I think it is something that we need to more of and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as commissioner of [FDA], I look forward to furthering the education efforts for providers and patients.”

Other areas he committed to included helping to improve clinical trial design for psychiatric medications and improving development of therapies for rare diseases.

Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said he plans to schedule a Dec. 3 vote to advance Dr. Hahn’s nomination to the full Senate for its consideration.

[email protected]

Stephen Hahn, MD, President Trump’s pick to head the Food and Drug Administration, faced questions from both sides of the aisle on youth vaping, but came up short when asked to commit to taking action, particularly on banning flavored vaping products.

Speaking at a Nov. 20 confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Dr. Hahn said that youth vaping and e-cigarette use is “an important, urgent crisis in this country. I do not want to see another generation of Americans become addicted to tobacco and nicotine and I believe that we need to take aggressive to stop that.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash), the committee’s ranking member, asked Dr. Hahn whether he would work to finalize a ban flavored e-cigarette products, first proposed but then backed away from, by the president in September.

“I understand that the final compliance policy is under consideration by the administration, and I look forward to their decision,” Dr. Hahn said. “I am not privy to those decision-making processes, but I very much agree and support that aggressive action needs to be taken to protect our children.”

When pressed by Sen. Murray as to whether he told President Trump that he disagrees with the decision to back away the proposed ban, Dr. Hahn revealed that he has “not had a conversation with the president.”

Dr. Hahn, a radiation oncologist who currently serves as chief medical executive at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, held firm to just coming up short of making that commitment when questioned by senators from both parties.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) warned Dr. Hahn that the playing of politics would be unlike anything he has seen and is already being played out in the lobbying of the administration to change its stance on flavored e-cigarette products, which can run counter to the science about the harmful effects of these products.

“The question is how you will balance those things in which you put forward,” Sen. Romney asked. “How you will deal with this issue is a pretty good test case for how you would deal with this issue on an ongoing basis on matters not just related to vaping.”

He also brought up President Trump’s September announcement on a flavor ban and the administration’s signaling they are moving away from a flavor ban. “Is the FDA, under your leadership, able and willing to take action which will protect our kids, whether or not the White House wants you to take that action?”

Dr. Hahn cited his pledge as a doctor to always put the patient first and reiterated that “I take that pledge very seriously and I think if you ask anyone who has worked with me, they will tell you that I have upheld that pledge.”

But he fell short of saying that he would take actions that would oppose the White House, saying only that “patients need to come first and the decisions that we make need to be guided by science and data, congruent with the law.”

When asked by Sen. Romney if he saw any reason for holding off on a flavor ban, given the evidence that suggests flavored e-cigarette products are the gateway to youths nicotine addiction, Dr. Hahn said that he has seen the same evidence and that it requires “bold action,” but did not commit to a flavor ban. “I will use science and data to guide the decisions if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, and I won’t back away from that.”

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) expressed concern about Dr. Hahn’s answers.

“I was less than happy with many of the answers you gave to members of this committee with regard to vaping and the potential ban on flavored e-cigarettes,” Sen. Jones said. “I think you can tell from the questions of so many senators that is one of the biggest issues that the United States Senate and Congress is facing right now. It is with this committee.”

Outside of vaping, much of the senators’ questioning was nonconfrontational, with questions spanning a gamut of issues facing the FDA.

Dr. Hahn offered his commitment to working with Congress to address drug shortages, noting nonspecifically that, “there are things that we can do to help.”

He also pledged to work with Congress on addressing patent reform to get more biosimilars to market in an effort to help drive down drug prices.

Regarding opioids, Dr. Hahn was asked about balancing the needs of those who legitimately need access to opioids against abuse and diversion.

“When I first went to medical school and started taking care of cancer patients, the teaching was that cancer patients should be treated liberally with opioids and that they don’t become addicted to pain medications,” he said. “We found out that wasn’t the case – and in some instances – with tragic consequences.”

He noted that pain therapy has evolved and that his institution now takes a multidisciplinary approach employing both opioid and nonopioid medications.

“I am very much a supporter of the multidisciplinary approach to treating pain,” he said. “I think it is something that we need to more of and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as commissioner of [FDA], I look forward to furthering the education efforts for providers and patients.”

Other areas he committed to included helping to improve clinical trial design for psychiatric medications and improving development of therapies for rare diseases.

Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said he plans to schedule a Dec. 3 vote to advance Dr. Hahn’s nomination to the full Senate for its consideration.

[email protected]