User login
The evolving pulmonary landscape in HIV
Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.
Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).
“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. ,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”
Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.
Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.
In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.
Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
Key chronic lung diseases
Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.
A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.
COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”
Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.
A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”
Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.
It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.
Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.
Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to
Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.
Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
Potential drivers
A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.
All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”
Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”
They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.
Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.
Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.
Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.
“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.
The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
Key questions in an evolving research landscape
Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).
The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.
Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)
Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.
[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]
For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?
There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.
None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.
Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.
Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).
“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. ,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”
Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.
Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.
In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.
Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
Key chronic lung diseases
Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.
A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.
COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”
Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.
A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”
Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.
It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.
Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.
Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to
Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.
Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
Potential drivers
A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.
All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”
Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”
They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.
Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.
Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.
Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.
“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.
The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
Key questions in an evolving research landscape
Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).
The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.
Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)
Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.
[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]
For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?
There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.
None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.
Chronic pulmonary disease continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals living with the human immunodeficiency virus, even with optimal HIV control. And this is independent, as seen in many studies, of age, smoking, and pulmonary infections.
Both chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD) and lung cancer occur more frequently in people living with HIV than in the general population, and at earlier ages, and with worse outcomes. The risk for emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities also appears to be higher, research has shown. And asthma has also recently emerged as another important lung disease in people with HIV (PWH).
“There is evidence that the severity of immunocompromise associated with HIV infection is linked with chronic lung diseases. People who have a lower CD4 cell count or a higher viral load do have an increased risk of COPD and emphysema as well as potentially lung cancer. ,” said Kristina Crothers, MD, professor in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Research has evolved from a focus on the epidemiology of HIV-related chronic lung diseases to a current emphasis on “trying to understand further the mechanisms [behind the heightened risk] through more benchwork and corollary translational studies, and then to the next level of trying to understand what this means for how we should manage people with HIV who have chronic lung diseases,” Dr. Crothers said. “Should management be tailored for people with HIV infection?”
Impairments in immune pathways, local and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, dysbiosis, and accelerated cellular senescence are among potential mechanisms, but until ongoing mechanistic research yields more answers, pulmonologists should simply – but importantly – be aware of the increased risk and have a low threshold for investigating respiratory symptoms, she and other experts said in interviews. Referral of eligible patients for lung cancer screening is also a priority, as is smoking cessation, they said.
Notably, while spirometry has been the most commonly studied lung function measure in PWH, another noninvasive measure, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), has garnered attention in the past decade and thus far appears to be the more frequent lung function abnormality.
In an analysis published in 2020 from the longitudinal Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) – a study of a subcohort of 591 men with HIV and 476 without HIV – those with HIV were found to have a 1.6-fold increased risk of mild DLCO impairment (< 80% of predicted normal) and a 3-fold higher risk of more severe DLCO impairment (< 60% of predicted normal). There was no significant difference in spirometry findings by HIV status.
Such findings on DLCO are worthy of consideration in clinical practice, even in the absence of HIV-specific screening guidelines for noncommunicable lung diseases, Dr. Crothers said. “In thinking about screening and diagnosing chronic lung diseases in these patients, I’d not only consider spirometry, but also diffusing capacity” when possible, she said. Impaired DLCO is seen with emphysema and pulmonary vascular diseases like pulmonary hypertension and also interstitial lung diseases.
Key chronic lung diseases
Ken M. Kunisaki, MD, MS, associate professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and the first author of the MACS analysis of lung function – one of the most recent and largest reports of DLCO impairment – points out that studies of chest computed tomography (CT) have also documented higher rates of emphysema and interstitial lung abnormalities.
A chest CT analysis from a cohort in Denmark (the Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection [COCOMO] cohort) found interstitial lung abnormalities in 10.9% of more than 700 PWH which represented a 1.8-fold increased risk compared to HIV-negative controls. And a study from an Italian sample of never-smoking PWH and controls reported emphysema in 18% and 4%, respectively. These studies, which did not measure DLCO, are among those discussed in a 2021 review by Dr. Kunisaki of advances in HIV-associated chronic lung disease research.
COPD is the best studied and most commonly encountered chronic lung disease in PWH. “Particularly for COPD, what’s both interesting and unfortunate is that we haven’t really seen any changes in the epidemiology with ART (antiretroviral therapy) – we’re still seeing the same findings, like the association of HIV with worse COPD at younger ages,” said Alison Morris, MD, MS, professor of medicine, immunology, and clinical and translational research at the University of Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t seem to have improved.”
Its prevalence has varied widely from cohort to cohort, from as low as 3% (similar to the general population) to over 40%, Dr. Kunisaki said, emphasizing that many studies, including studies showing higher rates, have controlled for current and past smoking. In evaluating patients with low or no smoking burden, “don’t discount respiratory symptoms as possibly reflecting underlying lung disease because COPD can develop with low to no smoking history in those with HIV,” he advised.
A better understanding of how a chronic viral infection like HIV leads to heightened COPD risk will not only help those with HIV, he notes, but also people without HIV who have COPD but have never smoked – a woefully underappreciated and understudied population. Ongoing research, he said, “should help us understand COPD pathogenesis generally.”
Research on asthma is relatively limited thus far, but it does appear that PWH may be more prone to developing severe asthma, just as with COPD, said Dr. Kunisaki, also a staff physician at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System. Research has shown, for instance, that people with HIV more frequently needed aggressive respiratory support when hospitalized for asthma exacerbations.
It’s unclear how much of this potentially increased severity is attributable to the biology of HIV’s impact on the body and how much relates to social factors like disparities in income and access to care, Dr. Kunisaki said, noting that the same questions apply to the more frequent COPD exacerbations documented in PWH.
Dr. Crothers points out that, while most studies do not suggest a difference in the incidence of asthma in PWH, “there is some data from researchers looking at asthma profiles [suggesting] that the biomarkers associated with asthma may be different in people with and without HIV,” signaling potentially different molecular or biologic underpinnings of the disease.
Incidence rates of lung cancer in PWH, meanwhile, have declined over the last 2 decades, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in PWH and occurs at a rate that is 2-2.5 times higher than that of individuals not infected with HIV, according to
Janice Leung, MD, of the division of respiratory medicine at the University of British Columbia and the Centre for Heart Lung Innovation at St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver.
Patients with HIV have “worse outcomes overall and a higher risk of mortality, even when presenting at the same stage,” said Dr. Leung, who reviewed trends in COPD and lung cancer in a recently published opinion piece.
Potential drivers
A bird’s eye view of potential – and likely interrelated – mechanisms for chronic lung disease includes chronic immune activation that impairs innate and adaptive immune pathways; chronic inflammation systemically and in the lung despite viral suppression; persistence of the virus in latent reservoirs in the lung, particularly in alveolar macrophages and T cells; HIV-related proteins contributing to oxidative stress; accelerated cellular aging; dysbiosis; and ongoing injury from inhaled toxins.
All are described in the literature and are being further explored. “It’s likely that multiple pathways are playing a role,” said Dr. Crothers, “and it could be that the balance of one to another leads to different manifestations of disease.”
Biomarkers that have been elevated and associated with different features of chronic lung disease – such as airflow obstruction, low DLCO, and emphysema – include markers of inflammation (e.g., C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), monocyte activation (e.g., soluble CD14), and markers of endothelial dysfunction, she noted in a 2021 commentary marking 40 years since the first reported cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
In her laboratory, Dr. Leung is using new epigenetic markers to look at the pathogenesis of accelerated aging in the lung. By profiling bronchial epithelial brushings for DNA methylation and gene expression, they have found that “people living with both HIV and COPD have the fastest epigenetic age acceleration in their airway epithelium,” she said. The findings “suggest that the HIV lung is aging faster.”
They reported their findings in 2022, describing methylation disruptions along age-related pathways such as cellular senescence, longevity regulation, and insulin signaling.
Dr. Leung and her team have also studied the lung microbiome and found lower microbial diversity in the airway epithelium in patients with HIV than those without, especially in those with HIV and COPD. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Lung HIV Microbiome Project found that changes in the lung microbiome are most pronounced in patients who haven’t yet initiated ART, but research in her lab suggests ongoing suppression of microbial diversity even after ART, she said.
Dr. Morris is particularly interested in the oral microbiome, having found through her research that changes in the oral microbiome in PWH were more related to impaired lung function than alterations in the lung and gut microbiome. “That may be in part because of the way we measure things,” she said. “But we also think that the oral microbiome probably seeds the lung [through micro-aspiration].” A study published in 2020 from the Pittsburgh site of the MACS described alterations in oral microbial communities in PWH with abnormal lung function.
Preliminary research suggests that improved dental cleaning and periodontal work in PWH and COPD may influence the severity of COPD, she noted.
“We don’t see as much of a signal with the gut microbiome [and HIV status or lung function], though there could still be ways in which gut microbiome influences the lung,” through systemic inflammation, the release of metabolites into the bloodstream, or microbial translocation, for instance, she said.
The potential role of translocation of members of the microbiome, in fact, is an area of active research for Dr. Morris. Members of the microbiome – viruses and fungi in addition to bacteria – “can get into the bloodstream from the mouth, from the lung, from the gut, to stimulate inflammation and worsen lung disease,” she said.
Key questions in an evolving research landscape
Dr. Kunisaki looks forward to research providing a more longitudinal look at lung function decline– a move beyond a dominance of cross-sectional studies – as well as research that is more comprehensive, with simultaneous collection of various functional measures (eg., DLCO with chest imaging and fractional excretion of nitric oxide (FENO – a standardized breath measure of Th2 airway inflammation).
The several-year-old NIH-supported MACS/WIHS (Women’s Interagency HIV Study) Combined Cohort study, in which Dr. Kunisaki and Dr. Morris participate, aims in part to identity biomarkers of increased risk for chronic lung disease and other chronic disorders and to develop strategies for more effective interventions and treatments.
Researchers will also share biospecimens, “which will allow more mechanistic work,” Dr. Kunisaki noted. (The combined cohort study includes participants from the earlier, separate MACS and WIHS studies.)
Questions about treatment strategies include the risks versus benefits of inhaled corticosteroids, which may increase an already elevated risk of respiratory infections like bacterial pneumonia in PWH, Dr. Kunisaki said.
[An aside: Inhaled corticosteroids also have well-described interactions with ART regimens that contain CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., ritonavir and cobicistat) that can lead to hypercortisolism. In patients who require both types of drugs, he said, beclomethasone has the least interactions and is the preferred inhaled corticosteroid.]
For Dr. Crothers, unanswered critical questions include – as she wrote in her 2021 commentary – the question of how guidelines for the management of COPD and asthma should be adapted for PWH. Is COPD in PWH more or less responsive to inhaled corticosteroids, for instance? And are antifibrotic treatments for interstitial lung disease and immunotherapies for asthma or lung cancer similarly effective, and are there any increased risks for harms in people with HIV?
There’s also the question of whether PWH should be screened for lung cancer earlier and with a lower smoking exposure than is advised under current guidelines for the general population, she said in the interview. “And should the approach to shared decision-making be modified for people with HIV?” she said. “We’re doing some work on these questions” right now.
None of the researchers interviewed reported any conflicts of interest relevant to the story. Dr. Kunisaki reported that he has no relevant disclosures, and said that his comments are his personal views and not official views of the U.S. Government, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Minneapolis VA, or the University of Minnesota.
The cardiopulmonary effects of mask wearing
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
There was a time when I would have had to explain to you what an N95 mask is, how it is designed to filter out 95% of fine particles, defined as stuff in the air less than 2.5 microns in size.
But of course, you know that now. The N95 had its moment – a moment that seemed to be passing as the concentration of airborne coronavirus particles decreased.
But, as the poet said, all that is less than 2.5 microns in size is not coronavirus. Wildfire smoke is also chock full of fine particulate matter. And so, N95s are having something of a comeback.
That’s why an article that took a deep look at what happens to our cardiovascular system when we wear N95 masks caught my eye.
Mask wearing has been the subject of intense debate around the country. While the vast majority of evidence, as well as the personal experience of thousands of doctors, suggests that wearing a mask has no significant physiologic effects, it’s not hard to find those who suggest that mask wearing depletes oxygen levels, or leads to infection, or has other bizarre effects.
In a world of conflicting opinions, a controlled study is a wonderful thing, and that’s what appeared in JAMA Network Open.
This isn’t a huge study, but it’s big enough to make some important conclusions. Thirty individuals, all young and healthy, half female, were enrolled. Each participant spent 3 days in a metabolic chamber; this is essentially a giant, airtight room where all the inputs (oxygen levels and so on) and outputs (carbon dioxide levels and so on) can be precisely measured.
After a day of getting used to the environment, the participants spent a day either wearing an N95 mask or not for 16 waking hours. On the next day, they switched. Every other variable was controlled, from the calories in their diet to the temperature of the room itself.
They engaged in light exercise twice during the day – riding a stationary bike – and a host of physiologic parameters were measured. The question being, would the wearing of the mask for 16 hours straight change anything?
And the answer is yes, some things changed, but not by much.
Here’s a graph of the heart rate over time. You can see some separation, with higher heart rates during the mask-wearing day, particularly around 11 a.m. – when light exercise was scheduled.
Zooming in on the exercise period makes the difference more clear. The heart rate was about eight beats/min higher while masked and engaging in exercise. Systolic blood pressure was about 6 mm Hg higher. Oxygen saturation was lower by 0.7%.
So yes, exercising while wearing an N95 mask might be different from exercising without an N95 mask. But nothing here looks dangerous to me. The 0.7% decrease in oxygen saturation is smaller than the typical measurement error of a pulse oximeter. The authors write that venous pH decreased during the masked day, which is of more interest to me as a nephrologist, but they don’t show that data even in the supplement. I suspect it didn’t decrease much.
They also showed that respiratory rate during exercise decreased in the masked condition. That doesn’t really make sense when you think about it in the context of the other findings, which are all suggestive of increased metabolic rate and sympathetic drive. Does that call the whole procedure into question? No, but it’s worth noting.
These were young, healthy people. You could certainly argue that those with more vulnerable cardiopulmonary status might have had different effects from mask wearing, but without a specific study in those people, it’s just conjecture. Clearly, this study lets us conclude that mask wearing at rest has less of an effect than mask wearing during exercise.
But remember that, in reality, we are wearing masks for a reason. One could imagine a study where this metabolic chamber was filled with wildfire smoke at a concentration similar to what we saw in New York. In that situation, we might find that wearing an N95 is quite helpful. The thing is, studying masks in isolation is useful because you can control so many variables. But masks aren’t used in isolation. In fact, that’s sort of their defining characteristic.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
There was a time when I would have had to explain to you what an N95 mask is, how it is designed to filter out 95% of fine particles, defined as stuff in the air less than 2.5 microns in size.
But of course, you know that now. The N95 had its moment – a moment that seemed to be passing as the concentration of airborne coronavirus particles decreased.
But, as the poet said, all that is less than 2.5 microns in size is not coronavirus. Wildfire smoke is also chock full of fine particulate matter. And so, N95s are having something of a comeback.
That’s why an article that took a deep look at what happens to our cardiovascular system when we wear N95 masks caught my eye.
Mask wearing has been the subject of intense debate around the country. While the vast majority of evidence, as well as the personal experience of thousands of doctors, suggests that wearing a mask has no significant physiologic effects, it’s not hard to find those who suggest that mask wearing depletes oxygen levels, or leads to infection, or has other bizarre effects.
In a world of conflicting opinions, a controlled study is a wonderful thing, and that’s what appeared in JAMA Network Open.
This isn’t a huge study, but it’s big enough to make some important conclusions. Thirty individuals, all young and healthy, half female, were enrolled. Each participant spent 3 days in a metabolic chamber; this is essentially a giant, airtight room where all the inputs (oxygen levels and so on) and outputs (carbon dioxide levels and so on) can be precisely measured.
After a day of getting used to the environment, the participants spent a day either wearing an N95 mask or not for 16 waking hours. On the next day, they switched. Every other variable was controlled, from the calories in their diet to the temperature of the room itself.
They engaged in light exercise twice during the day – riding a stationary bike – and a host of physiologic parameters were measured. The question being, would the wearing of the mask for 16 hours straight change anything?
And the answer is yes, some things changed, but not by much.
Here’s a graph of the heart rate over time. You can see some separation, with higher heart rates during the mask-wearing day, particularly around 11 a.m. – when light exercise was scheduled.
Zooming in on the exercise period makes the difference more clear. The heart rate was about eight beats/min higher while masked and engaging in exercise. Systolic blood pressure was about 6 mm Hg higher. Oxygen saturation was lower by 0.7%.
So yes, exercising while wearing an N95 mask might be different from exercising without an N95 mask. But nothing here looks dangerous to me. The 0.7% decrease in oxygen saturation is smaller than the typical measurement error of a pulse oximeter. The authors write that venous pH decreased during the masked day, which is of more interest to me as a nephrologist, but they don’t show that data even in the supplement. I suspect it didn’t decrease much.
They also showed that respiratory rate during exercise decreased in the masked condition. That doesn’t really make sense when you think about it in the context of the other findings, which are all suggestive of increased metabolic rate and sympathetic drive. Does that call the whole procedure into question? No, but it’s worth noting.
These were young, healthy people. You could certainly argue that those with more vulnerable cardiopulmonary status might have had different effects from mask wearing, but without a specific study in those people, it’s just conjecture. Clearly, this study lets us conclude that mask wearing at rest has less of an effect than mask wearing during exercise.
But remember that, in reality, we are wearing masks for a reason. One could imagine a study where this metabolic chamber was filled with wildfire smoke at a concentration similar to what we saw in New York. In that situation, we might find that wearing an N95 is quite helpful. The thing is, studying masks in isolation is useful because you can control so many variables. But masks aren’t used in isolation. In fact, that’s sort of their defining characteristic.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
There was a time when I would have had to explain to you what an N95 mask is, how it is designed to filter out 95% of fine particles, defined as stuff in the air less than 2.5 microns in size.
But of course, you know that now. The N95 had its moment – a moment that seemed to be passing as the concentration of airborne coronavirus particles decreased.
But, as the poet said, all that is less than 2.5 microns in size is not coronavirus. Wildfire smoke is also chock full of fine particulate matter. And so, N95s are having something of a comeback.
That’s why an article that took a deep look at what happens to our cardiovascular system when we wear N95 masks caught my eye.
Mask wearing has been the subject of intense debate around the country. While the vast majority of evidence, as well as the personal experience of thousands of doctors, suggests that wearing a mask has no significant physiologic effects, it’s not hard to find those who suggest that mask wearing depletes oxygen levels, or leads to infection, or has other bizarre effects.
In a world of conflicting opinions, a controlled study is a wonderful thing, and that’s what appeared in JAMA Network Open.
This isn’t a huge study, but it’s big enough to make some important conclusions. Thirty individuals, all young and healthy, half female, were enrolled. Each participant spent 3 days in a metabolic chamber; this is essentially a giant, airtight room where all the inputs (oxygen levels and so on) and outputs (carbon dioxide levels and so on) can be precisely measured.
After a day of getting used to the environment, the participants spent a day either wearing an N95 mask or not for 16 waking hours. On the next day, they switched. Every other variable was controlled, from the calories in their diet to the temperature of the room itself.
They engaged in light exercise twice during the day – riding a stationary bike – and a host of physiologic parameters were measured. The question being, would the wearing of the mask for 16 hours straight change anything?
And the answer is yes, some things changed, but not by much.
Here’s a graph of the heart rate over time. You can see some separation, with higher heart rates during the mask-wearing day, particularly around 11 a.m. – when light exercise was scheduled.
Zooming in on the exercise period makes the difference more clear. The heart rate was about eight beats/min higher while masked and engaging in exercise. Systolic blood pressure was about 6 mm Hg higher. Oxygen saturation was lower by 0.7%.
So yes, exercising while wearing an N95 mask might be different from exercising without an N95 mask. But nothing here looks dangerous to me. The 0.7% decrease in oxygen saturation is smaller than the typical measurement error of a pulse oximeter. The authors write that venous pH decreased during the masked day, which is of more interest to me as a nephrologist, but they don’t show that data even in the supplement. I suspect it didn’t decrease much.
They also showed that respiratory rate during exercise decreased in the masked condition. That doesn’t really make sense when you think about it in the context of the other findings, which are all suggestive of increased metabolic rate and sympathetic drive. Does that call the whole procedure into question? No, but it’s worth noting.
These were young, healthy people. You could certainly argue that those with more vulnerable cardiopulmonary status might have had different effects from mask wearing, but without a specific study in those people, it’s just conjecture. Clearly, this study lets us conclude that mask wearing at rest has less of an effect than mask wearing during exercise.
But remember that, in reality, we are wearing masks for a reason. One could imagine a study where this metabolic chamber was filled with wildfire smoke at a concentration similar to what we saw in New York. In that situation, we might find that wearing an N95 is quite helpful. The thing is, studying masks in isolation is useful because you can control so many variables. But masks aren’t used in isolation. In fact, that’s sort of their defining characteristic.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Profile of respiratory bacteria in children younger than 6 months
In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.1 We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.
Risk factors identified
The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.
We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.
Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.
The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
What is the clinical significance?
Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).
Prevalence of colonization varies among settings and countries, with generally much higher prevalence soon after birth and persisting at high rates in children living in low/middle-income countries versus high-income countries. This is one explanation for higher respiratory infection rates in low/middle-income countries compared with the United States, Europe, and other high-income countries. Environmental risk factors for early life colonization include household crowding, young siblings, no breastfeeding, daycare attendance, antibiotic usage, and passive exposure to smoke.
In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.2 We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.
Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.
Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.3 Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.
In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.
2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.
3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.
In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.1 We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.
Risk factors identified
The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.
We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.
Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.
The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
What is the clinical significance?
Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).
Prevalence of colonization varies among settings and countries, with generally much higher prevalence soon after birth and persisting at high rates in children living in low/middle-income countries versus high-income countries. This is one explanation for higher respiratory infection rates in low/middle-income countries compared with the United States, Europe, and other high-income countries. Environmental risk factors for early life colonization include household crowding, young siblings, no breastfeeding, daycare attendance, antibiotic usage, and passive exposure to smoke.
In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.2 We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.
Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.
Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.3 Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.
In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.
2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.
3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.
In this column, I will describe the results of a recently published study from my group.1 We sought to profile Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in the nasopharynx among 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)-immunized children, with a focus on the first 6 months of life. The rationale was to provide heretofore unreported contemporary data in a highly PCV13-immunized, community-based child population in the United States. A secondary objective was to assess nasopharyngeal bacterial density because higher density associates with greater likelihood of progression to infection. Thirdly, the serotype distribution and antibiotic susceptibility of pneumococci among children seen in primary care settings in the United States had not been evaluated for strains circulating among infants less than 6 months old and they may differ from strains recovered from older children. Therefore, comparisons were made within the same cohort of children to later child age time points.
Risk factors identified
The study was prospective and collected from a cohort of 101 children in Rochester, N.Y., during 2018-2020. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken for study at age 1, 2 and 3 weeks, then 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 24 months. All children had received PCV13 vaccine according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schedule.
We found two significant risk factors in the first 6 months of life for detection of nasopharyngeal colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat. They were daycare attendance and one or more siblings aged 1-5 years at home.
Colonization by one or more of the three bacteria was detected in only 5% of infants before age 2 months. None of the five children attended daycare but all five had young siblings at home. Pneumococcal colonization was detected in 12%, Hflu in 3%, and Mcat in 21% of nasopharyngeal swabs collected during the first 6 months of life. Nasopharyngeal colonization with the bacteria increased rapidly between age 4 and 6 months of life, coincident with infants going to daycare and other social interaction opportunities. Bacterial density of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat during the first 6 months of life was significantly lower in the nasopharynx compared with bacterial density when samples were collected during child age 7-24 months.
The prevalent pneumococcal serotypes in children up to 6 months old were 23B (17%), 22F (13%), 15B/C (11%), 16F (9%), and 21 (7%), 19F (7%), which differed from those isolated from children age 7-24 months, where serotypes 35B (15%), 21 (10%), 15B (9%), and 23B (7%), 23A (7%) were most commonly observed. Antibiotic resistance among isolates did not significantly differ in comparisons between infants younger than 6 months versus 7- to 24-month-olds.
What is the clinical significance?
Colonization of the nasopharynx is a necessary first step in infection pathogenesis (Figure).
Prevalence of colonization varies among settings and countries, with generally much higher prevalence soon after birth and persisting at high rates in children living in low/middle-income countries versus high-income countries. This is one explanation for higher respiratory infection rates in low/middle-income countries compared with the United States, Europe, and other high-income countries. Environmental risk factors for early life colonization include household crowding, young siblings, no breastfeeding, daycare attendance, antibiotic usage, and passive exposure to smoke.
In a prior study of a different cohort of 358 prospectively-enrolled children, we sought associations between physician-attended illness visits and bacterial colonization in the first 5 years of life.2 We showed that early age of first colonization with pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat was associated with respiratory infection proneness and asthma among the children.
Multiple demographic and risk factors may contribute to early life and high-density colonization that in turn may increase risk of infections. High densities and early life pneumococcal colonization in low/middle-income countries might impact PCV responses by induction of immunity tolerance. While it is appealing to study new vaccines in low/middle-income populations with high infection incidence, there are reasons that infection incidence is higher compared with high-income countries like the United States, among them may be early life nasopharyngeal colonization and density of colonization.
Prevalent pneumococcal serotype appear to differ with age. The most common serotypes in the first 6 months of life for the children were 23B> 22F> 16F and 21=19F, but in children 7-24 months, serotypes 35B> 21>15B>23A=23B were most commonly observed. This difference might be due to the impact of antibiotics.3 Pneumococci expressing serotypes 22F and 16F were oxacillin susceptible and antibiotic exposure in the first 6 months of life is very uncommon in our study cohorts. In contrast, all pneumococci expressing 35B capsule were oxacillin resistant and in our cohorts antibiotic exposures are common among 7- to 24-month-olds.
In conclusion, we determined that children in the first 6 months of life seen in pediatric primary care settings in Rochester, N.Y., have very low prevalence and low-density colonization of pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat compared with 7- to 24-month olds. Our results may explain the significantly lower rates of infections caused by pneumococci, Hflu, and Mcat in infants younger than 6 months old compared with low/middle-income countries.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Kaur R and Pichichero M. Colonization, density, and antibiotic resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus Influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis among PCV13 vaccinated infants in the first six months of life in Rochester, New York. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2023 Apr 18;12(3):135-42.
2. Chapman T et al. Nasopharyngeal colonization with pathobionts is associated with susceptibility to respiratory illnesses in young children. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12):e0243942. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243942.
3. Chapman TJ et al. Antibiotic use and vaccine antibody levels. Pediatrics 2022 May 1;149(5):e2021052061. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052061.
Wildfire smoke and air quality: How long could health effects last?
People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.
Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.
The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.
“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.
“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
How serious are the health warnings?
Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do?
We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.
“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.
Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help.
Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
Fine particles, big concerns
The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.
Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.
“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.
The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.
Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
Time to wear a mask again?
A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.
KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.
“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
What does that number mean?
The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.
The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”
How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.
New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.
AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”
Other “very unhealthy” locations have the following Index readings:
- 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
- 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
- 252: Kent County, Del.
- 270: Philadelphia.
- 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
- 293: Northern Virginia.
- 293: Metropolitan Washington.
These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:
- 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
- 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.
To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.
Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.
The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.
“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.
“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
How serious are the health warnings?
Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do?
We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.
“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.
Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help.
Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
Fine particles, big concerns
The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.
Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.
“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.
The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.
Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
Time to wear a mask again?
A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.
KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.
“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
What does that number mean?
The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.
The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”
How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.
New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.
AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”
Other “very unhealthy” locations have the following Index readings:
- 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
- 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
- 252: Kent County, Del.
- 270: Philadelphia.
- 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
- 293: Northern Virginia.
- 293: Metropolitan Washington.
These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:
- 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
- 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.
To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.
Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.
The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.
“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.
“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
How serious are the health warnings?
Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do?
We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.
“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.
Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help.
Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
Fine particles, big concerns
The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.
Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.
“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.
The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.
Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
Time to wear a mask again?
A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.
KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.
“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
What does that number mean?
The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.
The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”
How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.
New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.
AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”
Other “very unhealthy” locations have the following Index readings:
- 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
- 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
- 252: Kent County, Del.
- 270: Philadelphia.
- 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
- 293: Northern Virginia.
- 293: Metropolitan Washington.
These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:
- 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
- 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.
To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Antibiotics for acute exacerbation of COPD: It’s still controversial
In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.
Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.
Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
What do the data reveal?
To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.
The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?
In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
Key takeaways
In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.
In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.
Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.
Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
What do the data reveal?
To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.
The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?
In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
Key takeaways
In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.
In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.
Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.
Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
What do the data reveal?
To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.
The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?
In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
Key takeaways
In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.
In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The enemy of carcinogenic fumes is my friendly begonia
Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention
Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?
Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.
Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.
“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.
So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla
Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.
Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.
The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.
The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.
The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all
“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.
In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.
In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.
Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.
In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t
This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?
Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:
1. Why is the sky blue?
2. What do dreams mean?
3. What is the meaning of life?
4. Why am I so tired?
5. Who am I?
6. What is love?
7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?
8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
9. What should I do?
10. Do animals have souls?
Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention
Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?
Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.
Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.
“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.
So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla
Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.
Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.
The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.
The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.
The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all
“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.
In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.
In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.
Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.
In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t
This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?
Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:
1. Why is the sky blue?
2. What do dreams mean?
3. What is the meaning of life?
4. Why am I so tired?
5. Who am I?
6. What is love?
7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?
8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
9. What should I do?
10. Do animals have souls?
Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention
Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?
Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.
Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.
“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.
So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla
Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.
Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.
The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.
The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.
The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all
“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.
In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.
In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.
Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.
In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t
This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?
Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:
1. Why is the sky blue?
2. What do dreams mean?
3. What is the meaning of life?
4. Why am I so tired?
5. Who am I?
6. What is love?
7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?
8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
9. What should I do?
10. Do animals have souls?
ILD risk elevated in RA, PsA after starting biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs
MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.
The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.
Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”
The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).
A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).
The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.
When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”
Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”
“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”
Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”
The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.
MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.
The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.
Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”
The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).
A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).
The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.
When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”
Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”
“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”
Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”
The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.
MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.
The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.
Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”
The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).
A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).
The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.
When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”
Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”
“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”
Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”
The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.
AT EULAR 2023
Endobronchial valves: Sustained improvement in emphysema
WASHINGTON – based on data from 174 individuals.
One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.
The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.
Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).
Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.
The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1). At five years, the FEV1 values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV1 at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV1 improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.
Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.
Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.
The results suggest that the FEV1 improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.
The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON – based on data from 174 individuals.
One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.
The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.
Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).
Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.
The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1). At five years, the FEV1 values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV1 at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV1 improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.
Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.
Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.
The results suggest that the FEV1 improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.
The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON – based on data from 174 individuals.
One-way endobronchial valves demonstrated benefits for patients with severe emphysema over a 12-month period in the EMPROVE trial, according to Gerard J. Criner, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
Five-year results from the EMPROVE study were presented in a poster session at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
The initial EMPROVE trial demonstrated safety and efficacy of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) over 12 months. However, data on the long-term benefits of one-way endobronchial values are limited, the researchers wrote.
The valve was designed for use in selected areas of the bronchial airways and features a flexible umbrella that allows air and mucus to clear from treated airways while blocking inspired air flow to areas of the lungs affected by disease, the researchers explained in the poster.
Dr. Criner and colleagues assessed 172 patients who were randomly assigned to treatment with a one-way valve system (113 patients) or a control group (59 patients).
Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually for 5 years.
The primary efficacy outcome was lung function, measured by forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1). At five years, the FEV1 values improved by 0.1098 liters in the treatment group (P < .001). Treated patients and controls experienced decreased FEV1 at a rate of 0.0440 liters per year from baseline, a significant difference (P < .001). Assuming a steady rate of disease progression, “the treatment group gained approximately 2.5 years of FEV1 improvement immediately following SVS treatment, which was maintained, compared to controls,” the researchers noted in their abstract.
Serious adverse events were assessed from 6 months to 5 years (352.7 patient-years) for treated patients and from 6 months to 2 years (72.9 patient-years) for controls.
Overall, 210 SAEs occurred in the treatment group and 35 occurred in controls, for rates of 0.60 and 0.48, respectively (P = .201). The most common SAEs in the treatment and control groups were COPD exacerbations, pneumothorax, and death.
The results suggest that the FEV1 improvements seen in patients with severe emphysema after one-way endobronchial value placement compared with usual care are enduring after 5 years, with no significant changes in safety, the researchers concluded.
The original EMPROVE study was supported by Olympus Respiratory America, a part of Olympus Corporation and the developer of the Spiration Valve System. Results of the original study were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Criner is associate editor of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. His participation complies with American Thoracic Society requirements for recusal from review and decisions for authored works.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ATS 2023
Fatigue is a monster for patients with pulmonary disease
If you’re looking for it, you’ll find fatigue almost everywhere. It’s so common that it hides in plain sight, never dealt with because it’s present for good reason: the inevitable consequence of age, whatever disease you’re treating, poor lifestyle choices, and the daily grind of twenty-first–century life. Its impact is so ubiquitous and pernicious that it’s considered acceptable.
Is it though? After all, fatigue can be debilitating. Not every symptom is worthy of a chronic syndrome bearing its name. Furthermore, what if its relationship to the disease you’re treating is bidirectional?
Outside of sleep medicine, I see little focus on fatigue among pulmonologists. This despite the existing data on fatigue related to sarcoidosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung disease. Even when we do pay it lip service, “addressing” fatigue or sleep is essentially a euphemism for ordering a sleep study.
As with fatigue, if you look for obstructive sleep apnea, it’ll be there, although with OSA, it’s related to the incredibly low, nonevidence-based threshold the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has established for making the diagnosis. With continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hand, the patient has a new disease to worry about and a difficult behavioral change (wearing, cleaning, and resupplying their CPAP equipment) to make. Too often, the CPAP isn’t used – or is – and the fatigue persists. But it’s okay, because we followed somebody’s guideline.
The American Thoracic Society just published a research statement on cancer-related fatigue. It is comprehensive and highlights the high prevalence and poor recognition of cancer-related fatigue. The authors note that among cancers, those of the lung are associated with a higher comorbid disease burden, older age, and cigarette smoking. All these factors make patients with lung cancer particularly prone to fatigue. Interactions between these factors, lung cancer histology, and specific chemotherapy regimens are poorly understood. True to its title, the “research statement” serves more as a call to action than an evidence-based blueprint for diagnosis and management.
The cancer-related fatigue data that does exist suggests treatment starts with recognition followed by a focus on sleep, exercise, and nutrition. This should surprise no one. The data on fatigue in general (not specific to cancer-related fatigue) shows that although fatigue is not synonymous with poor quality or insufficient sleep, sleep is usually a major factor. The cancer-related conditions affecting sleep include anxiety, depression, insufficient sleep, insomnia, medication side effects, and OSA. The intersecting web is complex, but across underlying conditions (cancer or otherwise), the quickest most efficient method for mitigating fatigue is optimizing sleep.
Exercise and nutrition are also important. Again, across disease processes (interstitial lung disease, COPD, lung cancer, and so on), no drug comes close to aerobic exercise for reducing symptoms, including fatigue. If an exercise prescription could be delivered in pill-form, it’d be a blockbuster. But it can’t be, and the ATS lung cancer–related fatigue research statement nicely outlines the evidence for increased activity levels and the barriers to obtaining support and compliance. As is the case with exercise, support for improving nutrition is limited by cost, access, and patient education.
Perhaps most importantly, sleep, exercise, and nutrition require time for counseling and a behavior change for the physician and patient. Both are in short supply, and commitment is always ephemeral. Incentivization could perhaps be re-structured, but the ATS document notes this will be challenging. With respect to pulmonary rehabilitation (about 50% of patients with lung cancer have comorbid COPD), for example, reimbursement is poor, which serves as a disincentive. Their suggestions? Early integration and repeated introduction to rehabilitation and exercise concepts. Sounds great.
In summary, in my opinion, fatigue doesn’t receive the attention level commensurate with its impact. It’s easy to understand why, but I’m glad the ATS is highlighting the problem. Unbeknownst to me, multiple cancer guidelines already recommend screening for fatigue. The recent sarcoidosis treatment guideline published by the European Respiratory Society dedicated a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) to the topic and recommended exercise (pulmonary rehabilitation). That said, consensus statements on COPD mention it only in passing in relation to severe disease and end-of-life care, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis guidelines ignore it entirely. So, recognition is improving, but we’ve got ways to go.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
If you’re looking for it, you’ll find fatigue almost everywhere. It’s so common that it hides in plain sight, never dealt with because it’s present for good reason: the inevitable consequence of age, whatever disease you’re treating, poor lifestyle choices, and the daily grind of twenty-first–century life. Its impact is so ubiquitous and pernicious that it’s considered acceptable.
Is it though? After all, fatigue can be debilitating. Not every symptom is worthy of a chronic syndrome bearing its name. Furthermore, what if its relationship to the disease you’re treating is bidirectional?
Outside of sleep medicine, I see little focus on fatigue among pulmonologists. This despite the existing data on fatigue related to sarcoidosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung disease. Even when we do pay it lip service, “addressing” fatigue or sleep is essentially a euphemism for ordering a sleep study.
As with fatigue, if you look for obstructive sleep apnea, it’ll be there, although with OSA, it’s related to the incredibly low, nonevidence-based threshold the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has established for making the diagnosis. With continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hand, the patient has a new disease to worry about and a difficult behavioral change (wearing, cleaning, and resupplying their CPAP equipment) to make. Too often, the CPAP isn’t used – or is – and the fatigue persists. But it’s okay, because we followed somebody’s guideline.
The American Thoracic Society just published a research statement on cancer-related fatigue. It is comprehensive and highlights the high prevalence and poor recognition of cancer-related fatigue. The authors note that among cancers, those of the lung are associated with a higher comorbid disease burden, older age, and cigarette smoking. All these factors make patients with lung cancer particularly prone to fatigue. Interactions between these factors, lung cancer histology, and specific chemotherapy regimens are poorly understood. True to its title, the “research statement” serves more as a call to action than an evidence-based blueprint for diagnosis and management.
The cancer-related fatigue data that does exist suggests treatment starts with recognition followed by a focus on sleep, exercise, and nutrition. This should surprise no one. The data on fatigue in general (not specific to cancer-related fatigue) shows that although fatigue is not synonymous with poor quality or insufficient sleep, sleep is usually a major factor. The cancer-related conditions affecting sleep include anxiety, depression, insufficient sleep, insomnia, medication side effects, and OSA. The intersecting web is complex, but across underlying conditions (cancer or otherwise), the quickest most efficient method for mitigating fatigue is optimizing sleep.
Exercise and nutrition are also important. Again, across disease processes (interstitial lung disease, COPD, lung cancer, and so on), no drug comes close to aerobic exercise for reducing symptoms, including fatigue. If an exercise prescription could be delivered in pill-form, it’d be a blockbuster. But it can’t be, and the ATS lung cancer–related fatigue research statement nicely outlines the evidence for increased activity levels and the barriers to obtaining support and compliance. As is the case with exercise, support for improving nutrition is limited by cost, access, and patient education.
Perhaps most importantly, sleep, exercise, and nutrition require time for counseling and a behavior change for the physician and patient. Both are in short supply, and commitment is always ephemeral. Incentivization could perhaps be re-structured, but the ATS document notes this will be challenging. With respect to pulmonary rehabilitation (about 50% of patients with lung cancer have comorbid COPD), for example, reimbursement is poor, which serves as a disincentive. Their suggestions? Early integration and repeated introduction to rehabilitation and exercise concepts. Sounds great.
In summary, in my opinion, fatigue doesn’t receive the attention level commensurate with its impact. It’s easy to understand why, but I’m glad the ATS is highlighting the problem. Unbeknownst to me, multiple cancer guidelines already recommend screening for fatigue. The recent sarcoidosis treatment guideline published by the European Respiratory Society dedicated a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) to the topic and recommended exercise (pulmonary rehabilitation). That said, consensus statements on COPD mention it only in passing in relation to severe disease and end-of-life care, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis guidelines ignore it entirely. So, recognition is improving, but we’ve got ways to go.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
If you’re looking for it, you’ll find fatigue almost everywhere. It’s so common that it hides in plain sight, never dealt with because it’s present for good reason: the inevitable consequence of age, whatever disease you’re treating, poor lifestyle choices, and the daily grind of twenty-first–century life. Its impact is so ubiquitous and pernicious that it’s considered acceptable.
Is it though? After all, fatigue can be debilitating. Not every symptom is worthy of a chronic syndrome bearing its name. Furthermore, what if its relationship to the disease you’re treating is bidirectional?
Outside of sleep medicine, I see little focus on fatigue among pulmonologists. This despite the existing data on fatigue related to sarcoidosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung disease. Even when we do pay it lip service, “addressing” fatigue or sleep is essentially a euphemism for ordering a sleep study.
As with fatigue, if you look for obstructive sleep apnea, it’ll be there, although with OSA, it’s related to the incredibly low, nonevidence-based threshold the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has established for making the diagnosis. With continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hand, the patient has a new disease to worry about and a difficult behavioral change (wearing, cleaning, and resupplying their CPAP equipment) to make. Too often, the CPAP isn’t used – or is – and the fatigue persists. But it’s okay, because we followed somebody’s guideline.
The American Thoracic Society just published a research statement on cancer-related fatigue. It is comprehensive and highlights the high prevalence and poor recognition of cancer-related fatigue. The authors note that among cancers, those of the lung are associated with a higher comorbid disease burden, older age, and cigarette smoking. All these factors make patients with lung cancer particularly prone to fatigue. Interactions between these factors, lung cancer histology, and specific chemotherapy regimens are poorly understood. True to its title, the “research statement” serves more as a call to action than an evidence-based blueprint for diagnosis and management.
The cancer-related fatigue data that does exist suggests treatment starts with recognition followed by a focus on sleep, exercise, and nutrition. This should surprise no one. The data on fatigue in general (not specific to cancer-related fatigue) shows that although fatigue is not synonymous with poor quality or insufficient sleep, sleep is usually a major factor. The cancer-related conditions affecting sleep include anxiety, depression, insufficient sleep, insomnia, medication side effects, and OSA. The intersecting web is complex, but across underlying conditions (cancer or otherwise), the quickest most efficient method for mitigating fatigue is optimizing sleep.
Exercise and nutrition are also important. Again, across disease processes (interstitial lung disease, COPD, lung cancer, and so on), no drug comes close to aerobic exercise for reducing symptoms, including fatigue. If an exercise prescription could be delivered in pill-form, it’d be a blockbuster. But it can’t be, and the ATS lung cancer–related fatigue research statement nicely outlines the evidence for increased activity levels and the barriers to obtaining support and compliance. As is the case with exercise, support for improving nutrition is limited by cost, access, and patient education.
Perhaps most importantly, sleep, exercise, and nutrition require time for counseling and a behavior change for the physician and patient. Both are in short supply, and commitment is always ephemeral. Incentivization could perhaps be re-structured, but the ATS document notes this will be challenging. With respect to pulmonary rehabilitation (about 50% of patients with lung cancer have comorbid COPD), for example, reimbursement is poor, which serves as a disincentive. Their suggestions? Early integration and repeated introduction to rehabilitation and exercise concepts. Sounds great.
In summary, in my opinion, fatigue doesn’t receive the attention level commensurate with its impact. It’s easy to understand why, but I’m glad the ATS is highlighting the problem. Unbeknownst to me, multiple cancer guidelines already recommend screening for fatigue. The recent sarcoidosis treatment guideline published by the European Respiratory Society dedicated a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) to the topic and recommended exercise (pulmonary rehabilitation). That said, consensus statements on COPD mention it only in passing in relation to severe disease and end-of-life care, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis guidelines ignore it entirely. So, recognition is improving, but we’ve got ways to go.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Study of hospitalizations in Canada quantifies benefit of COVID-19 vaccine to reduce death, ICU admissions
A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.
Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).
“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”
The study, published in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.
“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
Tracing trends over six waves
The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).
Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.
The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.
The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”
Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).
“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.
“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
Doing more with the data
David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.
But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.
“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.
“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.
Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).
“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”
The study, published in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.
“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
Tracing trends over six waves
The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).
Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.
The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.
The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”
Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).
“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.
“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
Doing more with the data
David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.
But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.
“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.
“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A cohort study of more than 1.5 million hospital admissions in Canada through the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic has quantified the benefit of vaccinations. Unvaccinated patients were found to be up to 15 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated patients.
Investigators analyzed 1.513 million admissions at 155 hospitals across Canada from March 15, 2020, to May 28, 2022. The study included 51,679 adult admissions and 4,035 pediatric admissions for COVID-19. Although the share of COVID-19 admissions increased in the fifth and sixth waves, from Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022 – after the full vaccine rollout – to 7.73% from 2.47% in the previous four waves, the proportion of adults admitted to the intensive care unit was significantly lower, at 8.7% versus 21.8% (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.36).
“The good thing about waves five and six was we were able to show the COVID cases tended to be less severe, but on the other hand, because the disease in the community was so much higher, the demands on the health care system were much higher than the previous waves,” study author Charles Frenette, MD, director of infection prevention and control at McGill University, Montreal, and chair of the study’s adult subgroup, said in an interview. “But here we were able to show the benefit of vaccinations, particularly the boosting dose, in protecting against those severe outcomes.”
The study, published in JAMA Network Open, used the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program database, which collects hospital data across Canada. It was activated in March 2020 to collect details on all COVID-19 admissions, co-author Nisha Thampi, MD, chair of the study’s pediatric subgroup, told this news organization.
“We’re now over 3 years into the pandemic, and CNISP continues to monitor COVID-19 as well as other pathogens in near real time,” said Dr. Thampi, an associate professor and infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
“That’s a particular strength of this surveillance program as well. We would see this data on a biweekly basis, and that allows for [us] to implement timely protection and action.”
Tracing trends over six waves
The study tracked COVID-19 hospitalizations during six waves. The first lasted from March 15 to August 31, 2020, and the second lasted from Sept. 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021. The wild-type variant was dominant during both waves. The third wave lasted from March 1 to June 30, 2021, and was marked by the mixed Alpha, Beta, and Gamma variants. The fourth wave lasted from July 1 to Dec. 25, 2021, when the Alpha variant was dominant. The Omicron variant dominated during waves five (Dec. 26, 2021, to March 19, 2022) and six (March 20 to May 28, 2022).
Hospitalizations reached a peak of 14,461 in wave five. ICU admissions, however, peaked at 2,164 during wave four, and all-cause deaths peaked at 1,663 during wave two.
The investigators also analyzed how unvaccinated patients fared, compared with the fully vaccinated and the fully vaccinated-plus (that is, patients with one or more additional doses). During waves five and six, unvaccinated patients were 4.3 times more likely to end up in the ICU than fully vaccinated patients and were 12.2 times more likely than fully vaccinated-plus patients. Likewise, the rate for all-cause in-hospital death for unvaccinated patients was 3.9 times greater than that for fully vaccinated patients and 15.1 times greater than that for fully vaccinated-plus patients.
The effect of vaccines emerged in waves three and four, said Dr. Frenette. “We started to see really, really significant protection and benefit from the vaccine, not only in incidence of admission but also in the incidence of complications of ICU care, ventilation, and mortality.”
Results for pediatric patients were similar to those for adults, Dr. Thampi noted. During waves five and six, overall admissions peaked, but the share of ICU admissions decreased to 9.4% from 18.1%, which was the rate during the previous four waves (OR, 0.47).
“What’s important is how pediatric hospitalizations changed over the course of the various waves,” said Dr. Thampi.
“Where we saw the highest admissions during the early Omicron dominance, we actually had the lowest numbers of hospitalizations with death and admissions into ICUs.”
Doing more with the data
David Fisman, MD, MPH, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Toronto, said, “This is a study that shows us how tremendously dramatic the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine were in terms of saving lives during the pandemic.” Dr. Fisman was not involved in the study.
But CNISP, which receives funding from Public Health Agency of Canada, could do more with the data it collects to better protect the public from COVID-19 and other nosocomial infections, Dr. Fisman said.
“The first problematic thing about this paper is that Canadians are paying for a surveillance system that looks at risks of acquiring infections, including COVID-19 infections, in the hospital, but that data is not fed back to the people paying for its production,” he said.
“So, Canadians don’t have the ability to really understand in real time how much risk they’re experiencing via going to the hospital for some other reason.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Frenette and Dr. Thampi report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fisman has disclosed financial relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, Merck, the Ontario Nurses Association, and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.