Pulmonology

Over the last several years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on robotic bronchoscopy systems in the United States. The release of robotic scopes was made to great fanfare, translating into the market being infiltrated with these systems. With base costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, robotic bronchoscope systems are easily the most expensive singular capital investment in the bronchoscopy suite. I frequently get asked questions from those who have not yet made that purchase: “Should I buy a robot?” “How could I justify a new robot purchase to my hospital?” “Is the hype real?” These are complex questions to answer. Before one can answer, I think it’s best to look back on the last 2 decades of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung nodules to get a better understanding of the value proposition robotic bronchoscopes may offer.

Guided bronchoscopy for lung nodules has significantly evolved over the past 2 decades, shifting diagnostic procedures from interventional radiologist to the pulmonologist. Some of these advances were based in redesigns of the bronchoscope (ultrathin bronchoscopy) or application of technology to the bronchoscope (radial EBUS, virtual bronchoscopy); but, these were not broadly applicable to the pulmonology community at large. It was not until the development of electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB) that widespread adoption of bronchoscopy for lung nodules occurred. By and large, ENB fueled a rapid expansion of nodule bronchoscopy, mainly due to its ease of use and novel approach. Initial studies of ENB had impressive results; however, studies were criticized for having small numbers, inadequate follow-up, spurious definitions of yield, and that they were being done at highly specialized centers. The NAVIGATE trial was launched to address these criticisms among “real world” conditions. Sponsored by Medtronic, it studied ENB (superDimension platform, v6.0 or higher) across 29 academic and medical centers in the United States, enrolling over 1,000 patients (Folch EE, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14[3]:445-58. Epub 2018 Nov 23), and reported a diagnostic yield of 73%.

This led to a drive to improve upon yield, resulting in development of new technologies specifically designed to address some of the factors thought associated with diminished yield, and, out of this, robotic bronchoscopy was born. These factors included CT scan-body registration divergence, deflection of the extended working channel (EWC) by rigid biopsy tools, and inability to accurately “aim” the EWC-biopsy tool at the nodule; these were especially problematic in nodules not associated with airways. Robotic scopes were specifically designed to reach into the peripheral lung airways similar to an EWC, but with better structural integrity and steerability. This tip integrity would resist tool-related displacement, and steerability would allow for improved targeting of nodules during the biopsy.

There are two robots approved by the FDA at the time of this writing (Auris Monarch, Intuitive Ion), with a third awaiting FDA clearance (Noah Galaxy). In general, though the engineering of the robotic scopes to improve structural tip integrity are similar, the approach to navigation and targeting vary significantly. The Monarch platform uses electromagnetic guidance, similar to other traditional ENB platforms. The Ion platform does not use ENB; instead, it uses fiberoptic shape sensing technology, which analyzes the shape and orientation of the scope to provide location information. There are potential advantages to shape sensing, the most notable being the absence of electromagnetics; this allows for use of fluoroscopy during the procedure, which otherwise would have interfered with ENB-based navigation. There are other subtle differences between the two robots. The Monarch uses a scope-in-scope design, with a robotic scope contained within a robotic sheath; the Ion uses a single robotic scope. The Ion scope diameter is 3.5 mm, whereas the Monarch diameter is 4.4 mm; this may be a potential advantage when having to navigate through smaller airways.

So, which robot is better suited to reach peripheral nodules more consistently and accurately? I get asked this question a lot, since I have both platforms at my institution. But, answering with my own opinion based on my institution’s anecdotal experience would be irresponsible. I’m more of a “what does the data show?” person. Luckily, we do have clinical trials in both robot technologies. It should be noted here that there will likely never be a head-to-head randomized trial, so evaluating published studies with each platform is going to be the best method we have for comparison going forward, albeit an imperfect one. It should also be noted that many of the early robotic bronchoscopy trials have to be looked at with caution, as yield definitions tended not to be conservative and/or the follow-up of non-malignant was not robust. With that in mind, let’s review representative high-quality studies for each platform.

The best study to date using the Ion platform came out of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Kalchiem-Dekel O, et al. Chest. 2022;161[2];572-82). This single-site study reported on 159 nodule biopsies, with the primary outcome being diagnostic yield. The patients had 1 year of follow-up, and the definition of yield was conservative. The average lesion size was 18 mm, and nodule locations and characteristics were representative of real-world conditions. Overall diagnostic yield was 81.7%; however, it dropped to under 70% for nodules under 20 mm in size.

The largest study to date using the Monarch platform was also a single center study, this from the University of Chicago (Agrawal, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Jan 17;S0003-4975(22)00042-X. Online ahead of print). This study included 124 nodules with at least 12 months of follow-up; diagnostic yield definition was conservative. Median nodule size was 20.5 mm, with distribution and characteristics representative of real-world conditions. Overall accuracy was 77%, and, similar to the Ion study, dropped to under 70% when nodule size was smaller than 20 mm.

Overall, both robot studies seemed to show a modest improvement in diagnostic yield when compared with ENB, and their outcomes were overall similar. It is important to remember that these were studies of each center’s first experiences with early versions of each technology; over time, the technology will continue to improve, as will operator skill and experience, and with that, perhaps improvements in yield will be seen, as well.

Interestingly, both studies evaluated target localization using radial EBUS (rEBUS), which also allowed for airway-nodule relationships to be reported. In Kalchiem-Dekel’s study, 85% of cases used rEBUS to determine localization, and, of these, 91.2% of cases showed accurate localization. In Agrawal’s study, rEBUS was used in all cases with a reported localization of 94%. In both, yield did not seem to be affected by airway-nodule relationships, perhaps explained by more robust tip control of the robotic scope. However, localization did not equate to yield in all cases, which brings up a very important question: Can the yield of robotic bronchoscopy be further improved with better real-time on-board imaging, such as CBCT scanning or C-arm based tomography? Currently, there is a study using 3D technology (Cios 3D Mobile Spin) in conjunction with the Ion platform to evaluate this.

So, let’s circle back to where we started. I think if you look at the totality of the data, it is clear that the robotic platforms currently offer a modest improvement in diagnostic yield over traditional ENB, with individual performances that are somewhat equivalent despite differences in design and operation. But does this improvement in yield justify the cost? Individual hospitals will have to make that decision. The capital cost and per-use price of the scope is significant, which has to be balanced against each center’s current performance with non-robotic bronchoscopy.

To date, there have been over 25,000 robotic procedures performed in the United States, so enthusiasm across diverse centers is being maintained. Whether this enthusiasm is driven by yield or novelty, or both, I’m not sure. With other nonrobotic platforms having reached, or soon to reach, the market, this is a good time to be in the business of bronchoscopy.

Dr. Cicenia is in the Section of Bronchoscopy at Cleveland Clinic’s Respiratory Institute, Cleveland, Ohio.

Over the last several years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on robotic bronchoscopy systems in the United States. The release of robotic scopes was made to great fanfare, translating into the market being infiltrated with these systems. With base costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, robotic bronchoscope systems are easily the most expensive singular capital investment in the bronchoscopy suite. I frequently get asked questions from those who have not yet made that purchase: “Should I buy a robot?” “How could I justify a new robot purchase to my hospital?” “Is the hype real?” These are complex questions to answer. Before one can answer, I think it’s best to look back on the last 2 decades of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung nodules to get a better understanding of the value proposition robotic bronchoscopes may offer.

Guided bronchoscopy for lung nodules has significantly evolved over the past 2 decades, shifting diagnostic procedures from interventional radiologist to the pulmonologist. Some of these advances were based in redesigns of the bronchoscope (ultrathin bronchoscopy) or application of technology to the bronchoscope (radial EBUS, virtual bronchoscopy); but, these were not broadly applicable to the pulmonology community at large. It was not until the development of electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB) that widespread adoption of bronchoscopy for lung nodules occurred. By and large, ENB fueled a rapid expansion of nodule bronchoscopy, mainly due to its ease of use and novel approach. Initial studies of ENB had impressive results; however, studies were criticized for having small numbers, inadequate follow-up, spurious definitions of yield, and that they were being done at highly specialized centers. The NAVIGATE trial was launched to address these criticisms among “real world” conditions. Sponsored by Medtronic, it studied ENB (superDimension platform, v6.0 or higher) across 29 academic and medical centers in the United States, enrolling over 1,000 patients (Folch EE, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14[3]:445-58. Epub 2018 Nov 23), and reported a diagnostic yield of 73%.

This led to a drive to improve upon yield, resulting in development of new technologies specifically designed to address some of the factors thought associated with diminished yield, and, out of this, robotic bronchoscopy was born. These factors included CT scan-body registration divergence, deflection of the extended working channel (EWC) by rigid biopsy tools, and inability to accurately “aim” the EWC-biopsy tool at the nodule; these were especially problematic in nodules not associated with airways. Robotic scopes were specifically designed to reach into the peripheral lung airways similar to an EWC, but with better structural integrity and steerability. This tip integrity would resist tool-related displacement, and steerability would allow for improved targeting of nodules during the biopsy.

There are two robots approved by the FDA at the time of this writing (Auris Monarch, Intuitive Ion), with a third awaiting FDA clearance (Noah Galaxy). In general, though the engineering of the robotic scopes to improve structural tip integrity are similar, the approach to navigation and targeting vary significantly. The Monarch platform uses electromagnetic guidance, similar to other traditional ENB platforms. The Ion platform does not use ENB; instead, it uses fiberoptic shape sensing technology, which analyzes the shape and orientation of the scope to provide location information. There are potential advantages to shape sensing, the most notable being the absence of electromagnetics; this allows for use of fluoroscopy during the procedure, which otherwise would have interfered with ENB-based navigation. There are other subtle differences between the two robots. The Monarch uses a scope-in-scope design, with a robotic scope contained within a robotic sheath; the Ion uses a single robotic scope. The Ion scope diameter is 3.5 mm, whereas the Monarch diameter is 4.4 mm; this may be a potential advantage when having to navigate through smaller airways.

So, which robot is better suited to reach peripheral nodules more consistently and accurately? I get asked this question a lot, since I have both platforms at my institution. But, answering with my own opinion based on my institution’s anecdotal experience would be irresponsible. I’m more of a “what does the data show?” person. Luckily, we do have clinical trials in both robot technologies. It should be noted here that there will likely never be a head-to-head randomized trial, so evaluating published studies with each platform is going to be the best method we have for comparison going forward, albeit an imperfect one. It should also be noted that many of the early robotic bronchoscopy trials have to be looked at with caution, as yield definitions tended not to be conservative and/or the follow-up of non-malignant was not robust. With that in mind, let’s review representative high-quality studies for each platform.

The best study to date using the Ion platform came out of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Kalchiem-Dekel O, et al. Chest. 2022;161[2];572-82). This single-site study reported on 159 nodule biopsies, with the primary outcome being diagnostic yield. The patients had 1 year of follow-up, and the definition of yield was conservative. The average lesion size was 18 mm, and nodule locations and characteristics were representative of real-world conditions. Overall diagnostic yield was 81.7%; however, it dropped to under 70% for nodules under 20 mm in size.

The largest study to date using the Monarch platform was also a single center study, this from the University of Chicago (Agrawal, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Jan 17;S0003-4975(22)00042-X. Online ahead of print). This study included 124 nodules with at least 12 months of follow-up; diagnostic yield definition was conservative. Median nodule size was 20.5 mm, with distribution and characteristics representative of real-world conditions. Overall accuracy was 77%, and, similar to the Ion study, dropped to under 70% when nodule size was smaller than 20 mm.

Overall, both robot studies seemed to show a modest improvement in diagnostic yield when compared with ENB, and their outcomes were overall similar. It is important to remember that these were studies of each center’s first experiences with early versions of each technology; over time, the technology will continue to improve, as will operator skill and experience, and with that, perhaps improvements in yield will be seen, as well.

Interestingly, both studies evaluated target localization using radial EBUS (rEBUS), which also allowed for airway-nodule relationships to be reported. In Kalchiem-Dekel’s study, 85% of cases used rEBUS to determine localization, and, of these, 91.2% of cases showed accurate localization. In Agrawal’s study, rEBUS was used in all cases with a reported localization of 94%. In both, yield did not seem to be affected by airway-nodule relationships, perhaps explained by more robust tip control of the robotic scope. However, localization did not equate to yield in all cases, which brings up a very important question: Can the yield of robotic bronchoscopy be further improved with better real-time on-board imaging, such as CBCT scanning or C-arm based tomography? Currently, there is a study using 3D technology (Cios 3D Mobile Spin) in conjunction with the Ion platform to evaluate this.

So, let’s circle back to where we started. I think if you look at the totality of the data, it is clear that the robotic platforms currently offer a modest improvement in diagnostic yield over traditional ENB, with individual performances that are somewhat equivalent despite differences in design and operation. But does this improvement in yield justify the cost? Individual hospitals will have to make that decision. The capital cost and per-use price of the scope is significant, which has to be balanced against each center’s current performance with non-robotic bronchoscopy.

To date, there have been over 25,000 robotic procedures performed in the United States, so enthusiasm across diverse centers is being maintained. Whether this enthusiasm is driven by yield or novelty, or both, I’m not sure. With other nonrobotic platforms having reached, or soon to reach, the market, this is a good time to be in the business of bronchoscopy.

Dr. Cicenia is in the Section of Bronchoscopy at Cleveland Clinic’s Respiratory Institute, Cleveland, Ohio.

Over the last several years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on robotic bronchoscopy systems in the United States. The release of robotic scopes was made to great fanfare, translating into the market being infiltrated with these systems. With base costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, robotic bronchoscope systems are easily the most expensive singular capital investment in the bronchoscopy suite. I frequently get asked questions from those who have not yet made that purchase: “Should I buy a robot?” “How could I justify a new robot purchase to my hospital?” “Is the hype real?” These are complex questions to answer. Before one can answer, I think it’s best to look back on the last 2 decades of bronchoscopy for peripheral lung nodules to get a better understanding of the value proposition robotic bronchoscopes may offer.

Guided bronchoscopy for lung nodules has significantly evolved over the past 2 decades, shifting diagnostic procedures from interventional radiologist to the pulmonologist. Some of these advances were based in redesigns of the bronchoscope (ultrathin bronchoscopy) or application of technology to the bronchoscope (radial EBUS, virtual bronchoscopy); but, these were not broadly applicable to the pulmonology community at large. It was not until the development of electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB) that widespread adoption of bronchoscopy for lung nodules occurred. By and large, ENB fueled a rapid expansion of nodule bronchoscopy, mainly due to its ease of use and novel approach. Initial studies of ENB had impressive results; however, studies were criticized for having small numbers, inadequate follow-up, spurious definitions of yield, and that they were being done at highly specialized centers. The NAVIGATE trial was launched to address these criticisms among “real world” conditions. Sponsored by Medtronic, it studied ENB (superDimension platform, v6.0 or higher) across 29 academic and medical centers in the United States, enrolling over 1,000 patients (Folch EE, et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14[3]:445-58. Epub 2018 Nov 23), and reported a diagnostic yield of 73%.

This led to a drive to improve upon yield, resulting in development of new technologies specifically designed to address some of the factors thought associated with diminished yield, and, out of this, robotic bronchoscopy was born. These factors included CT scan-body registration divergence, deflection of the extended working channel (EWC) by rigid biopsy tools, and inability to accurately “aim” the EWC-biopsy tool at the nodule; these were especially problematic in nodules not associated with airways. Robotic scopes were specifically designed to reach into the peripheral lung airways similar to an EWC, but with better structural integrity and steerability. This tip integrity would resist tool-related displacement, and steerability would allow for improved targeting of nodules during the biopsy.

There are two robots approved by the FDA at the time of this writing (Auris Monarch, Intuitive Ion), with a third awaiting FDA clearance (Noah Galaxy). In general, though the engineering of the robotic scopes to improve structural tip integrity are similar, the approach to navigation and targeting vary significantly. The Monarch platform uses electromagnetic guidance, similar to other traditional ENB platforms. The Ion platform does not use ENB; instead, it uses fiberoptic shape sensing technology, which analyzes the shape and orientation of the scope to provide location information. There are potential advantages to shape sensing, the most notable being the absence of electromagnetics; this allows for use of fluoroscopy during the procedure, which otherwise would have interfered with ENB-based navigation. There are other subtle differences between the two robots. The Monarch uses a scope-in-scope design, with a robotic scope contained within a robotic sheath; the Ion uses a single robotic scope. The Ion scope diameter is 3.5 mm, whereas the Monarch diameter is 4.4 mm; this may be a potential advantage when having to navigate through smaller airways.

So, which robot is better suited to reach peripheral nodules more consistently and accurately? I get asked this question a lot, since I have both platforms at my institution. But, answering with my own opinion based on my institution’s anecdotal experience would be irresponsible. I’m more of a “what does the data show?” person. Luckily, we do have clinical trials in both robot technologies. It should be noted here that there will likely never be a head-to-head randomized trial, so evaluating published studies with each platform is going to be the best method we have for comparison going forward, albeit an imperfect one. It should also be noted that many of the early robotic bronchoscopy trials have to be looked at with caution, as yield definitions tended not to be conservative and/or the follow-up of non-malignant was not robust. With that in mind, let’s review representative high-quality studies for each platform.

The best study to date using the Ion platform came out of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (Kalchiem-Dekel O, et al. Chest. 2022;161[2];572-82). This single-site study reported on 159 nodule biopsies, with the primary outcome being diagnostic yield. The patients had 1 year of follow-up, and the definition of yield was conservative. The average lesion size was 18 mm, and nodule locations and characteristics were representative of real-world conditions. Overall diagnostic yield was 81.7%; however, it dropped to under 70% for nodules under 20 mm in size.

The largest study to date using the Monarch platform was also a single center study, this from the University of Chicago (Agrawal, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022 Jan 17;S0003-4975(22)00042-X. Online ahead of print). This study included 124 nodules with at least 12 months of follow-up; diagnostic yield definition was conservative. Median nodule size was 20.5 mm, with distribution and characteristics representative of real-world conditions. Overall accuracy was 77%, and, similar to the Ion study, dropped to under 70% when nodule size was smaller than 20 mm.

Overall, both robot studies seemed to show a modest improvement in diagnostic yield when compared with ENB, and their outcomes were overall similar. It is important to remember that these were studies of each center’s first experiences with early versions of each technology; over time, the technology will continue to improve, as will operator skill and experience, and with that, perhaps improvements in yield will be seen, as well.

Interestingly, both studies evaluated target localization using radial EBUS (rEBUS), which also allowed for airway-nodule relationships to be reported. In Kalchiem-Dekel’s study, 85% of cases used rEBUS to determine localization, and, of these, 91.2% of cases showed accurate localization. In Agrawal’s study, rEBUS was used in all cases with a reported localization of 94%. In both, yield did not seem to be affected by airway-nodule relationships, perhaps explained by more robust tip control of the robotic scope. However, localization did not equate to yield in all cases, which brings up a very important question: Can the yield of robotic bronchoscopy be further improved with better real-time on-board imaging, such as CBCT scanning or C-arm based tomography? Currently, there is a study using 3D technology (Cios 3D Mobile Spin) in conjunction with the Ion platform to evaluate this.

So, let’s circle back to where we started. I think if you look at the totality of the data, it is clear that the robotic platforms currently offer a modest improvement in diagnostic yield over traditional ENB, with individual performances that are somewhat equivalent despite differences in design and operation. But does this improvement in yield justify the cost? Individual hospitals will have to make that decision. The capital cost and per-use price of the scope is significant, which has to be balanced against each center’s current performance with non-robotic bronchoscopy.

To date, there have been over 25,000 robotic procedures performed in the United States, so enthusiasm across diverse centers is being maintained. Whether this enthusiasm is driven by yield or novelty, or both, I’m not sure. With other nonrobotic platforms having reached, or soon to reach, the market, this is a good time to be in the business of bronchoscopy.

Dr. Cicenia is in the Section of Bronchoscopy at Cleveland Clinic’s Respiratory Institute, Cleveland, Ohio.

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

New COVID-19 vaccine boosters, targeting new Omicron strains of the virus, are expected to roll out across the United States in September – a month ahead of schedule, the Biden administration announced this week.

Moderna has signed a $1.74 billion federal contract to supply 66 million initial doses of the “bivalent” booster, which includes the original “ancestral” virus strain and elements of the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 variants. Pfizer also announced a $3.2 billion U.S. agreement for another 105 million shots. Both vaccine suppliers have signed options to provide millions more boosters in the months ahead.

About 83.5% of Americans have received at least one COVID-19 shot, with 71.5% fully vaccinated with the initial series, 48% receiving one booster shot, and 31% two boosters, according to the CDC. With about 130,000 new COVID cases per day, and about 440 deaths, officials say the updated boosters may help rein in those figures by targeting the highly transmissible and widely circulating Omicron strains.

Federal health officials are still hammering out details of guidelines and recommendations of who should get the boosters, which are expected to come from the CDC and FDA. For now, authorities have decided not to expand eligibility for second boosters of the existing vaccines – now recommended only for adults over 50 and those 12 and older with immune deficiencies. Children 5 through 11 are advised to receive a single booster, 5 months after their initial vaccine series.

For a preview of what to expect from the CDC and FDA, this news organization spoke with Keri Althoff, PhD, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

Q: Based on what we know now, who should be getting one of these new bivalent boosters?A: Of course, there is a process here regarding the specific recommendations, but it appears there will likely be a recommendation for all individuals to get this bivalent booster, similar to the first booster. And there will likely be a recommended time frame as to time since the last booster.

Right now, we have a recommendation for adults over the age of 50 or adults who are at higher risk for severe COVID-related illness [to get] a second booster. For them, there will probably be a timeline that says you should get the booster if you’re X amount of months or more from your second booster; or X amount of months or more from your first booster, if you’ve only had one.

Q: What about pregnant women or those being treated for chronic health conditions?A: I would imagine that once this bivalent booster becomes available, it will be recommended for all adults.

Q: And for children?A: That’s a good question. It’s something I have been digging into, [and] I think parents are really interested in this. Most kids, 5 and above, are supposed to be boosted with one shot right now, if they’re X amount of days from their primary vaccine series. Of course those 6 months to 4.99 years are not yet eligible [for boosters].

As a parent, I would love to see my children become eligible for the bivalent booster. It would be great if these boosters are conveying some additional protection that the kids could get access to before we send them off to school this fall. But there are questions as to whether or not that is going to happen.

Q: If you never received a booster, but only the preliminary vaccine series, do you need to get those earlier boosters before having the new bivalent booster shot?A: I don’t think they will likely make that a requirement – to restrict the bivalent booster only to those who are already boosted or up to date on their vaccines at the time the bivalent booster becomes available. But that will be up to the [CDC] vaccine recommendation committee to decide.

Q: Are there any new risks associated with these boosters, since they were developed so rapidly?A: No. We continue to monitor this technology, and with all the mRNA vaccines that have been delivered, you have seen all that monitoring play out with the detection, for example, of different forms of inflammation of the heart tissue and who that may impact. So, those monitoring systems work, and they work really, really well, so we can detect those things. And we know these vaccines are definitely safe.

Q: Some health experts are concerned “vaccine fatigue” will have an impact on the booster campaign. What’s your take?A: We have seen this fatigue in the proportion of individuals who are boosted with a first booster and even boosted with a second. But having those earlier boosters along with this new bivalent booster is important, because essentially, what we’re doing is really priming the immune system.

We’re trying to expedite the process of getting people’s immune system up to speed so that when the virus comes our way – as we know it will, because [of] these Omicron strains that are highly infectious and really whipping through our communities – we’re able to get the highest level of population immunity, you don’t end up in the hospital.

Q: What other challenges do you see in persuading Americans to get another round of boosters?A: One of the things that I’ve been hearing a lot, which I get very nervous about, is people saying: “Oh, I got fully vaccinated, I did or did not get the booster, and I had COVID anyway and it was really nothing, it didn’t feel like much to me, and so I’m not going to be boosted anymore.” We are not in a place quite yet where those guidelines are being rolled back in any way, shape, or form. We still have highly vulnerable people to severe disease and death in our communities, and we’re seeing hundreds of deaths every day.

There are consequences, even if it isn’t in severity of disease, meaning hospitalization and death. And let’s not let the actual quality of the vaccine being so successful that it can keep you out of the hospital. Don’t mistake that for “I don’t need another one.”

Q: Unlike the flu shot, which is reformulated each year to match circulating strains, the new COVID boosters offer protection against older strains as well as the newer ones. Why?A: It’s all about creating a broader immune response in individuals so that as more strains emerge, which they likely will, we can create a broader population immune response [to all strains]. Our individual bodies are seeing differences in these strains through vaccination that helps everyone stay healthy.

Q: There haven’t been clinical trials of these new mRNA boosters. How strong is the evidence that they will be effective against the emerging Omicron variants?A: There have been some studies – some great studies – looking at things like neutralizing antibodies, which we use as a surrogate for clinical trials. But that is not the same as studying the outcome of interest, which would be hospitalizations. So, part of the challenge is to be able to say: “Okay, this is what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the prior vaccines ... and how can we relate that to outcomes with these new boosters at an earlier stage [before] clinical data is available?”

Q: How long will the new boosters’ protections last – do we know yet?A: That timing is still a question, but of course what plays a big role in that is what COVID strains are circulating. If we prep these boosters that are Omicron specific, and then we have something totally new emerge ... we have to be more nimble because the variants are outpacing what we’re able to do.

This turns out to be a bit of a game of probability – the more infection we have, the more replication of the virus; the more replication, the more opportunity for mutations and subsequent variants.

Q: What about a combined flu-COVID vaccine; is that on the horizon?A: My children, who like most children do not like vaccines, always tell me: “Mom, why can’t they just put the influenza vaccine and the COVID vaccine into the same shot?” And I’m like: “Oh, from your lips to some scientist’s ears.”

At a time like this, where mRNA technology has totally disrupted what we can do with vaccines, in such a good way, I think we should push for the limits, because that would be incredible.

Q: If you’ve received a non-mRNA COVID vaccine, like those produced by Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, should you also get an mRNA booster?A: Right now, the CDC guidelines do state that if your primary vaccine series was not with an mRNA vaccine then being boosted with an mRNA is a fine thing to do, and it’s actually encouraged. So that’s not going to change with the bivalent booster.

Q: Is it okay to get a flu shot and a COVID booster at the same time, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended with past vaccines?A: I don’t anticipate there being recommendations against that. But I would also say watch for the recommendations that come out this fall on the bivalent boosters.

I do hope in the recommendations the CDC makes about the COVID boosters, they will say think about also getting your influenza vaccine, too. You could also get your COVID booster first, then by October get your influenza vaccine.

Q: Once you’re fully boosted, is it safe to stop wearing a mask, social distancing, avoiding crowded indoor spaces, and taking other precautions to avoid COVID-19?A: The virus is going to do what it does, which is infect whomever it can, and make them sick. So, if you see a lot of community transmission – you know who is ill with COVID in your kids’ schools, you know in your workplace and when people go out – that still signals there’s some increases in the circulation of virus. So, look at that to understand what your risk is.

If you know someone or have a colleague who is currently pregnant or immune suppressed, think about how you can protect them with mask-wearing, even if it’s just when you’re in one-on-one closed-door meetings with that individual.

So, your masking question is an important one, and it’s important for people to continue to hang onto those masks and wear them the week before you go see Grandma, for instance, to further reduce your risk so you don’t bring anything to here.

The high-level community risk nationwide is high right now. COVID is here.

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

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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

An AI-guided analysis of more than 1,000 human lung transcriptomic datasets found that COVID-19 resembles idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) at a fundamental level, according to a study published in eBiomedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, a significant number of patients develop a fibrotic lung disease, for which insights into pathogenesis, disease models, or treatment options are lacking, according to researchers Dr. Sinha and colleagues. This long-haul form of the disease culminates in a fibrotic type of interstitial lung disease (ILD). While the actual prevalence of post–COVID-19 ILD (PCLD) is still emerging, early analysis indicates that more than a third of COVID-19 survivors develop fibrotic abnormalities, according to the authors.

Previous research has shown that one of the important determinants for PCLD is the duration of disease. Among patients who developed fibrosis, approximately 4% of patients had a disease duration of less than 1 week; approximately 24% had a disease duration between 1 and 3 weeks; and around 61% had a disease duration longer than 3 weeks, the authors stated.

The lung transcriptomic datasets compared in their study were associated with various lung conditions. The researchers used two viral pandemic signatures (ViP and sViP) and one COVID lung-derived signature. They found that the resemblances included that COVID-19 recapitulates the gene expression patterns (ViP and IPF signatures), cytokine storm (IL15-centric), and the AT2 cytopathic changes, for example, injury, DNA damage, arrest in a transient, damage-induced progenitor state, and senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP).

In laboratory experiments, Dr. Sinha and colleagues were able to induce these same immunocytopathic features in preclinical COVID-19 models (human adult lung organoid and hamster) and to reverse them in the hamster model with effective anti–CoV-2 therapeutics.

PPI-network analyses pinpointed endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress as one of the shared early triggers of both IPF and COVID-19, and immunohistochemistry studies validated the same in the lungs of deceased subjects with COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2–challenged hamster lungs. Additionally, lungs from transgenic mice, in which ER stress was induced specifically in the AT2 cells, faithfully recapitulated the host immune response and alveolar cytopathic changes that are induced by SARS-CoV-2.

“In this work, we found that a blood-based gene expression biomarker, which works for prognostication in COVID, also works for IPF,” stated corresponding author Pradipta Ghosh, MD, professor in the departments of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, University of California, San Diego. “If proven in prospective studies, this biomarker could indicate who is at greatest risk for progressive fibrosis and may require lung transplantation,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Ghosh stated further, “When it comes to therapeutics in COVID lung or IPF, we also found that shared fundamental pathogenic mechanisms present excellent opportunities for developing therapeutics that can arrest the fibrogenic drivers in both diseases. One clue that emerged is a specific cytokine that is at the heart of the smoldering inflammation which is invariably associated with fibrosis. That is interleukin 15 [IL-15] and its receptor.” Dr. Ghosh observed that there are two Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for IPF. “None are very effective in arresting this invariably fatal disease. Hence, finding better options to treat IPF is an urgent and an unmet need.”

Preclinical testing of hypotheses, Dr. Ghosh said, is next on the path to clinical trials. “We have the advantage of using human lung organoids (mini-lungs grown using stem cells) in a dish, adding additional cells to the system (like fibroblasts and immune cells), infecting them with the virus, or subjecting them to the IL-15 cytokine and monitoring lung fibrosis progression in a dish. Anti–IL-15 therapy can then be initiated to observe reversal of the fibrogenic cascade.” Hamsters have also been shown to provide appropriate models for mimicking lung fibrosis, Dr. Ghosh said. 

“The report by Sinha and colleagues describes the fascinating similarities between drivers of post-COVID lung disease and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” stated David Bowton, MD, professor emeritus, section on critical care, department of anesthesiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., in an interview. He added that, “Central to the mechanisms of induction of fibrosis in both disorders appears to be endoplasmic reticulum stress in alveolar type II cells (AT2). ER stress induces the unfolded protein response (UPR) that halts protein translation and promotes the degradation of misfolded proteins. Prolonged UPR can reprogram the cell or trigger apoptosis pathways. ER stress in the lung has been reported in a variety of cell lines including AT2 in IPF, bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in asthma and [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and endothelial cells in pulmonary hypertension.”

Dr. Bowton commented further, including a caution, “Sinha and colleagues suggest that the identification of these gene signatures and mechanisms will be a fruitful avenue for developing effective therapeutics for IPF and other fibrotic lung diseases. I am hopeful that these data may offer clues that expedite this process.  However, the redundancy of triggers for effector pathways in biologic systems argues that, even if successful, this will be [a] long and fraught process.”

The research study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants and funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.

Dr. Sinha, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Bowton reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) who were born to Black mothers were significantly more likely to die or to have a longer hospital stay than infants of other ethnicities, based on data from more than 800 infants.

The overall incidence of BPD is rising, in part because of improved survival for extremely preterm infants, wrote Tamorah R. Lewis, MD, of the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and colleagues.

Previous studies suggest that racial disparities may affect outcomes for preterm infants with a range of neonatal morbidities during neonatal ICU (NICU) hospitalization, including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, and necrotizing enterocolitis. However, the association of racial disparities with outcomes for preterm infants with BPD remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers, on behalf of the Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Collaborative, reviewed data from 834 preterm infants enrolled in the BPD Collaborative registry from Jan. 1, 2015, to July 19, 2021, at eight centers in the United States.

The study infants were born at less than 32 weeks’ gestation and were diagnosed with severe BPD according to the 2001 National Institutes of Health Consensus Criteria. The study population included 276 Black infants and 558 white infants. The median gestational age was 24 weeks, and 41% of the infants were female.

The primary outcomes were infant death and length of hospital stay.

Although death was infrequent (4% overall), Black maternal race was significantly associated with an increased risk of death from BPD (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1). Black maternal race also was significantly associated with a longer hospital stay for the infants, with an adjusted between-group difference of 10 days.

Infants of Black mothers also were more likely than those with White mothers to receive invasive respiratory support at the time of delivery. Black infants were more likely than White infants to have lower gestational age, lower birth weight and length, and smaller head circumference.

However, the proportions of cesarean deliveries, gender distribution, and infants small for gestational age were similar between Black and White infant groups. Medication exposure at 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) also was similar for Black and White infants, and 50% of patients overall were treated with nasal continuous positive airway pressure at 36 weeks’ PMA. Awareness of the increased risk of death and longer hospital stay for Black infants is critical, “given the highly variable outcomes for patients with BPD and the uncertainty regarding demographic factors that contribute to late respiratory morbidity in severe BPD,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including variations among study centers in the identification and recording of maternal race, lack of data on paternal race, and the focus specifically on Black maternal race and not other ethnicities. Given the documented health disparities for Black individuals in the United States, “we restricted our cohort to only those patients born to Black or White mothers to estimate the association of Black maternal race and adverse in-hospital outcomes in infants with severe BPD,” the researchers wrote

Other limitations include the lack of data surrounding infant death and inability to adjust for all potential modifiers of BPD pathogenesis and progression, such as BPD comorbidities.

Prospective studies are needed to identify the sociodemographic mechanisms that may contribute to health outcome disparities for Black infants with severe BPD, the researchers emphasized.

In the meantime, the results highlight the need for more attention to variations in care for infants with BPD of different races, and approaches to family-centered care should consider “the precise needs of high-risk, structurally disadvantaged families while informing the design of prospective trials that improve outcomes for high-risk subgroups of children with severe BPD,” they concluded.
 

Data raise questions about the origin of disparities

The current study findings contribute to the knowledge and awareness of disparities in the high-risk NICU population, Nicolas A. Bamat, MD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Further, their findings oppose the central tendency in the literature: that infants of Black mothers have less severe lung disease of prematurity during the birth hospitalization.”

The editorial authors noted that the study’s inclusion of racial characteristics as confounding variables to assess the effect of race on health “can imply questionable assumptions about where in a causal pathway racism begins to exert an effect,” whether after a diagnosis of BPD, during pregnancy in response to inequitable obstetric care, or “centuries ago, propagating forward through the shared experience of communities oppressed by the legacy of racism and its ongoing contemporary manifestations.”

The editorial authors added that, “in lung disease of prematurity, few variables are reliable antecedents to race as an exposure. Complex adjustment is necessary to reduce bias in targeted research questions.” However, the current study findings highlight the need to move toward more equitable neonatal care, and to prioritize interventions to reduce racial health disparities at the level of the NICU as well as at the hospital and government policy levels.
 

Consider range of contributing factors and confounders

The current study is important because “it is imperative to measure racial outcomes in health care in order to highlight and address disparities and biases,” Tim Joos, MD, said in an interview. However, “it can be difficult to determine how much race is a factor in itself versus a proxy for other important characteristics, such as socioeconomic status and level of education, that can confound the results.”

In the current study, the twofold-increased death rate in the premature infants of Black mothers is concerning and deserves further attention, Dr. Joos said. “The 10-day longer length of stay for infants of Black mothers seems quite shocking at first glance, but because of the long hospital stays for these extremely premature infants in general, it is about 7% longer than the infants born to White mothers.”

The take-home message is that this difference is still significant, and can reflect many factors including disease severity and complications, need for feeding assistance, teaching, and setting up home supports, said Dr. Joos.

As for additional research, “it would be useful for hospitals to break down why the differences exist, although I worry a provider or institution will feel they need to discharge Black families sooner to avoid being biased. Family preference and comfort level should be given high priority,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding, but lead author Dr. Lewis was supported by the National Institute on Child Health and Development and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Several coauthors were supported by other grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Barnat and one coauthor were supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.


 

Infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) who were born to Black mothers were significantly more likely to die or to have a longer hospital stay than infants of other ethnicities, based on data from more than 800 infants.

The overall incidence of BPD is rising, in part because of improved survival for extremely preterm infants, wrote Tamorah R. Lewis, MD, of the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and colleagues.

Previous studies suggest that racial disparities may affect outcomes for preterm infants with a range of neonatal morbidities during neonatal ICU (NICU) hospitalization, including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, and necrotizing enterocolitis. However, the association of racial disparities with outcomes for preterm infants with BPD remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers, on behalf of the Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Collaborative, reviewed data from 834 preterm infants enrolled in the BPD Collaborative registry from Jan. 1, 2015, to July 19, 2021, at eight centers in the United States.

The study infants were born at less than 32 weeks’ gestation and were diagnosed with severe BPD according to the 2001 National Institutes of Health Consensus Criteria. The study population included 276 Black infants and 558 white infants. The median gestational age was 24 weeks, and 41% of the infants were female.

The primary outcomes were infant death and length of hospital stay.

Although death was infrequent (4% overall), Black maternal race was significantly associated with an increased risk of death from BPD (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1). Black maternal race also was significantly associated with a longer hospital stay for the infants, with an adjusted between-group difference of 10 days.

Infants of Black mothers also were more likely than those with White mothers to receive invasive respiratory support at the time of delivery. Black infants were more likely than White infants to have lower gestational age, lower birth weight and length, and smaller head circumference.

However, the proportions of cesarean deliveries, gender distribution, and infants small for gestational age were similar between Black and White infant groups. Medication exposure at 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) also was similar for Black and White infants, and 50% of patients overall were treated with nasal continuous positive airway pressure at 36 weeks’ PMA. Awareness of the increased risk of death and longer hospital stay for Black infants is critical, “given the highly variable outcomes for patients with BPD and the uncertainty regarding demographic factors that contribute to late respiratory morbidity in severe BPD,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including variations among study centers in the identification and recording of maternal race, lack of data on paternal race, and the focus specifically on Black maternal race and not other ethnicities. Given the documented health disparities for Black individuals in the United States, “we restricted our cohort to only those patients born to Black or White mothers to estimate the association of Black maternal race and adverse in-hospital outcomes in infants with severe BPD,” the researchers wrote

Other limitations include the lack of data surrounding infant death and inability to adjust for all potential modifiers of BPD pathogenesis and progression, such as BPD comorbidities.

Prospective studies are needed to identify the sociodemographic mechanisms that may contribute to health outcome disparities for Black infants with severe BPD, the researchers emphasized.

In the meantime, the results highlight the need for more attention to variations in care for infants with BPD of different races, and approaches to family-centered care should consider “the precise needs of high-risk, structurally disadvantaged families while informing the design of prospective trials that improve outcomes for high-risk subgroups of children with severe BPD,” they concluded.
 

Data raise questions about the origin of disparities

The current study findings contribute to the knowledge and awareness of disparities in the high-risk NICU population, Nicolas A. Bamat, MD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Further, their findings oppose the central tendency in the literature: that infants of Black mothers have less severe lung disease of prematurity during the birth hospitalization.”

The editorial authors noted that the study’s inclusion of racial characteristics as confounding variables to assess the effect of race on health “can imply questionable assumptions about where in a causal pathway racism begins to exert an effect,” whether after a diagnosis of BPD, during pregnancy in response to inequitable obstetric care, or “centuries ago, propagating forward through the shared experience of communities oppressed by the legacy of racism and its ongoing contemporary manifestations.”

The editorial authors added that, “in lung disease of prematurity, few variables are reliable antecedents to race as an exposure. Complex adjustment is necessary to reduce bias in targeted research questions.” However, the current study findings highlight the need to move toward more equitable neonatal care, and to prioritize interventions to reduce racial health disparities at the level of the NICU as well as at the hospital and government policy levels.
 

Consider range of contributing factors and confounders

The current study is important because “it is imperative to measure racial outcomes in health care in order to highlight and address disparities and biases,” Tim Joos, MD, said in an interview. However, “it can be difficult to determine how much race is a factor in itself versus a proxy for other important characteristics, such as socioeconomic status and level of education, that can confound the results.”

In the current study, the twofold-increased death rate in the premature infants of Black mothers is concerning and deserves further attention, Dr. Joos said. “The 10-day longer length of stay for infants of Black mothers seems quite shocking at first glance, but because of the long hospital stays for these extremely premature infants in general, it is about 7% longer than the infants born to White mothers.”

The take-home message is that this difference is still significant, and can reflect many factors including disease severity and complications, need for feeding assistance, teaching, and setting up home supports, said Dr. Joos.

As for additional research, “it would be useful for hospitals to break down why the differences exist, although I worry a provider or institution will feel they need to discharge Black families sooner to avoid being biased. Family preference and comfort level should be given high priority,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding, but lead author Dr. Lewis was supported by the National Institute on Child Health and Development and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Several coauthors were supported by other grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Barnat and one coauthor were supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.


 

Infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) who were born to Black mothers were significantly more likely to die or to have a longer hospital stay than infants of other ethnicities, based on data from more than 800 infants.

The overall incidence of BPD is rising, in part because of improved survival for extremely preterm infants, wrote Tamorah R. Lewis, MD, of the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and colleagues.

Previous studies suggest that racial disparities may affect outcomes for preterm infants with a range of neonatal morbidities during neonatal ICU (NICU) hospitalization, including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, and necrotizing enterocolitis. However, the association of racial disparities with outcomes for preterm infants with BPD remains unclear, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers, on behalf of the Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Collaborative, reviewed data from 834 preterm infants enrolled in the BPD Collaborative registry from Jan. 1, 2015, to July 19, 2021, at eight centers in the United States.

The study infants were born at less than 32 weeks’ gestation and were diagnosed with severe BPD according to the 2001 National Institutes of Health Consensus Criteria. The study population included 276 Black infants and 558 white infants. The median gestational age was 24 weeks, and 41% of the infants were female.

The primary outcomes were infant death and length of hospital stay.

Although death was infrequent (4% overall), Black maternal race was significantly associated with an increased risk of death from BPD (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1). Black maternal race also was significantly associated with a longer hospital stay for the infants, with an adjusted between-group difference of 10 days.

Infants of Black mothers also were more likely than those with White mothers to receive invasive respiratory support at the time of delivery. Black infants were more likely than White infants to have lower gestational age, lower birth weight and length, and smaller head circumference.

However, the proportions of cesarean deliveries, gender distribution, and infants small for gestational age were similar between Black and White infant groups. Medication exposure at 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) also was similar for Black and White infants, and 50% of patients overall were treated with nasal continuous positive airway pressure at 36 weeks’ PMA. Awareness of the increased risk of death and longer hospital stay for Black infants is critical, “given the highly variable outcomes for patients with BPD and the uncertainty regarding demographic factors that contribute to late respiratory morbidity in severe BPD,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including variations among study centers in the identification and recording of maternal race, lack of data on paternal race, and the focus specifically on Black maternal race and not other ethnicities. Given the documented health disparities for Black individuals in the United States, “we restricted our cohort to only those patients born to Black or White mothers to estimate the association of Black maternal race and adverse in-hospital outcomes in infants with severe BPD,” the researchers wrote

Other limitations include the lack of data surrounding infant death and inability to adjust for all potential modifiers of BPD pathogenesis and progression, such as BPD comorbidities.

Prospective studies are needed to identify the sociodemographic mechanisms that may contribute to health outcome disparities for Black infants with severe BPD, the researchers emphasized.

In the meantime, the results highlight the need for more attention to variations in care for infants with BPD of different races, and approaches to family-centered care should consider “the precise needs of high-risk, structurally disadvantaged families while informing the design of prospective trials that improve outcomes for high-risk subgroups of children with severe BPD,” they concluded.
 

Data raise questions about the origin of disparities

The current study findings contribute to the knowledge and awareness of disparities in the high-risk NICU population, Nicolas A. Bamat, MD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Further, their findings oppose the central tendency in the literature: that infants of Black mothers have less severe lung disease of prematurity during the birth hospitalization.”

The editorial authors noted that the study’s inclusion of racial characteristics as confounding variables to assess the effect of race on health “can imply questionable assumptions about where in a causal pathway racism begins to exert an effect,” whether after a diagnosis of BPD, during pregnancy in response to inequitable obstetric care, or “centuries ago, propagating forward through the shared experience of communities oppressed by the legacy of racism and its ongoing contemporary manifestations.”

The editorial authors added that, “in lung disease of prematurity, few variables are reliable antecedents to race as an exposure. Complex adjustment is necessary to reduce bias in targeted research questions.” However, the current study findings highlight the need to move toward more equitable neonatal care, and to prioritize interventions to reduce racial health disparities at the level of the NICU as well as at the hospital and government policy levels.
 

Consider range of contributing factors and confounders

The current study is important because “it is imperative to measure racial outcomes in health care in order to highlight and address disparities and biases,” Tim Joos, MD, said in an interview. However, “it can be difficult to determine how much race is a factor in itself versus a proxy for other important characteristics, such as socioeconomic status and level of education, that can confound the results.”

In the current study, the twofold-increased death rate in the premature infants of Black mothers is concerning and deserves further attention, Dr. Joos said. “The 10-day longer length of stay for infants of Black mothers seems quite shocking at first glance, but because of the long hospital stays for these extremely premature infants in general, it is about 7% longer than the infants born to White mothers.”

The take-home message is that this difference is still significant, and can reflect many factors including disease severity and complications, need for feeding assistance, teaching, and setting up home supports, said Dr. Joos.

As for additional research, “it would be useful for hospitals to break down why the differences exist, although I worry a provider or institution will feel they need to discharge Black families sooner to avoid being biased. Family preference and comfort level should be given high priority,” he emphasized.

The study received no outside funding, but lead author Dr. Lewis was supported by the National Institute on Child Health and Development and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Several coauthors were supported by other grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Barnat and one coauthor were supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.


 

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. ¹ He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.

The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?

Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.

So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.

There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.

What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.

Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?

Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.

Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?

Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.

If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.

Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.

A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.

Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.

Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?

Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.

It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.

Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?

Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.

So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.

I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.

Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.

Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Disclosures: None reported.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The study covered in this summary was published in medRxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• Right ventricular (RV) dilation or dysfunction in patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk for in-hospital death.
• The impact of RV dilation or dysfunction on in-hospital mortality is similar for patients with acute COVID-19 and those with influenza, pneumonia, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but COVID-19 patients have greater absolute in-hospital mortality.
• RV dilatation or dysfunction in patients with acute COVID-19 is associated with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Why this matters

• Right ventricular dysfunction increases mortality risk in acute COVID-19, and this study shows that RV dilation and dysfunction among such hospitalized patients has a similar impact on risk for in-hospital death in acute COVID-19 and in other respiratory illnesses.
• The findings suggest that abnormal RV findings should be considered a mortality risk marker in patients with acute respiratory illness, especially COVID-19.

Study design

• The retrospective study involved 225 consecutive patients admitted for acute COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021 at four major hospitals in the same metropolitan region and a control group of 6,150 adults admitted to the hospital for influenza, pneumonia, or ARDS; mean age in the study cohort was 63 years.
• All participants underwent echocardiography during their hospitalization, including evaluation of any RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Associations between RV measurements and in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome, were adjusted for potential confounders.

Key results

• Patients in the COVID-19 group were more likely than were those in the control group to be male (66% vs. 54%; P < .001), to identify as Hispanic (38% vs. 15%; P < .001), and to have a higher mean body mass index (29.4 vs. 27.9 kg/m²; P = .008).
• Compared with the control group, patients in the COVID-19 group more often required admission to the intensive care unit (75% vs. 54%; P < .001), mechanical ventilation (P < .001), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (P = .002), and more often were diagnosed with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (25% vs. 14%; P < .001). The median length of hospital stay was 20 days in the COVID-19 group, compared with 10 days in the control group (P < .001).
• In-hospital mortality was 21.3% in the COVID-19 group and 11.8% in the control group (P = .001). Those hospitalized with COVID-19 had an adjusted relative risk (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.24; P = .02) for in-hospital mortality, compared with those hospitalized for other respiratory illnesses.
• Mild RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI, 1.17-1.69; P = .0003) for in-hospital death, and moderate to severe RV dilation was associated with an adjusted RR of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.62-2.47; P < .0001).
• The corresponding adjusted risks for mild RV dysfunction and greater-than-mild RV dysfunction were, respectively, 1.39 (95% CI, 1.10-1.77; P = .007) and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.17-2.42; P = .005).
• The RR for in-hospital mortality associated with RV dilation and dysfunction was similar in those with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory illness, but the former had a higher baseline risk that yielded a greater absolute risk in the COVID-19 group.

Limitations

• The study was based primarily on a retrospective review of electronic health records, which poses a risk for misclassification. 
• Echocardiography was performed without blinding operators to patient clinical status, and echocardiograms were interpreted in a single university hospital system, so were not externally validated.
• Because echocardiograms obtained during hospitalization could not be compared with previous echocardiograms, it could not be determined whether any of the patients had preexisting RV dilation or dysfunction.
• Strain imaging was not feasible in many cases.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, Association of Right Ventricular Dilation and Dysfunction on Echocardiogram With In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 Compared With Other Acute Respiratory Illness, written by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, department of medicine, and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, division of cardiology. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Differences in the safety and efficacy between the biologics approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma are so minimal as to not meet clinically important thresholds, a network meta-analysis shows.

“We know relatively little of the comparative effectiveness or safety of biologics approved for the treatment of asthma [but since] the number of these biologics continue to rise and their indications are increasing, the opportunities to use these biologics will only continue to increase, and we need to know more about their comparative effectiveness to optimize their use,” Ayobami Akenroye, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“But the decision to use one biologic or not is complex and goes beyond comparative effectiveness, and factors such as insurance coverage, convenience of self-administration, and comorbidities all play a role in the choice of biologics,” she said, adding that all the outcomes assessed in the study contribute to or reflect a patient’s underlying asthma control.

The study was published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
 

Interleukin pathways

Drugs that target various interleukin signaling pathways involved in the pathogenesis of asthma include mepolizumab (Nucala), benralizumab (Fasenra), and dupilumab (Dupixent), all of which have been shown to decrease exacerbation rates, improve lung function, and enhance quality of life for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. In a Bayesian network meta-analysis that allows for simultaneous comparisons of these three treatments, investigators analyzed eight randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared each of the drugs with placebo. In total, the trials involved 6,461 patients; the duration of follow-up was between 24 and 56 weeks.

“In the subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics were significantly better than placebo in reducing exacerbations,” Dr. Akenroye and colleagues reported. For example, dupilumab reduced the exacerbation risk by 68% at a risk ratio of 0.32 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.45), while mepolizumab reduced it by almost as much at 63% (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45).

Benralizumab was slightly less effective than the other two biologics, reducing exacerbation risk by 51% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). “In patients with eosinophil counts of ≥ 300 cells/mcL, all three biologics had a probability of 1 in improving the exacerbation rate by 20% or more ... in comparison to placebo,” the authors wrote.

Regarding each drug’s effect in improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), the mean difference in milliliters with dupilumab before and after treatment was 230 (95% CI, 160-300), while for benralizumab, the MD was 150 (95% CI, 100-220) before and after treatment. With mepolizumab, the MD in FEV₁ before and after treatment was also 150. In the same subgroup of patients with eosinophil counts of at least300 cells/mcL, all three biologics again had a probability of 1 in improving FEV₁ by 50 mL or more above the placebo effect. A third endpoint that was analyzed was the potential reduction in asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores. With mepolizumab, the MD before and after treatment was –0.65 (95% CI, –0.81 to –0.45); with dupilumab, it was –0.48 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.14); and with dupilumab, it was –0.32 (95% CI, –0.43 to –0.21).

“Dupilumab was significantly better than benralizumab in improving exacerbations,” the authors noted (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94), while mepolizumab was also better than benralizumab (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95). On the other hand, both dupilumab and benralizumab led to greater improvements in FEV₁ than mepolizumab, although the effects of dupilumab and benralizumab on ACQ scores were not significantly different for patients whose lower eosinophil counts were between 150 and 299 cells/mcL.

As for safety outcomes, both mepolizumab and benralizumab were associated with a lower risk of serious adverse events, but dupilumab was not different from placebo in terms of overall safety, according to the authors. “The ultimate choice of biologic for each patient would ... depend on multiple factors including cost considerations and timing of administration.

“[However], these results may be helpful to clinicians as they optimize patient care,” they concluded. Limitations to the analysis include the fact that indirect comparisons cannot replace randomized trials that compare the three drugs directly.

It’s estimated that 5%-10% of the 26 million individuals with asthma in the United States have severe disease.

Dr. Akenroye disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Falsely elevated pulse oximeter readings are leading to less oxygen supplementation for people of color, a recent study finds.

The new research suggests that skin color–related differences in pulse oximeter readings are in fact impacting clinical decision-making, lead author Eric R. Gottlieb, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote. This suggests that technology needs to updated to improve health equity, they continued, in their paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“It has been known for decades that these readings are affected by various surface pigmentations, including nail polish and skin melanin, which may affect light absorption and scattering,” the investigators wrote. “This increases the risk of hidden hypoxemia [among patients with darker skin], in which patients have falsely elevated SpO₂ readings, usually defined as 92% or greater, with a blood hemoglobin oxygen saturation less than 88%.”

Although published reports on this phenomenon date back to the 1980s, clinical significance has been largely discounted, they said, citing a 2008 paper on the topic, which stated that “oximetry need not have exact accuracy” to determine if a patient needs oxygen supplementation.
 

‘We’re not providing equal care’

Questioning the validity of this statement, Dr. Gottlieb and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 3,069 patients admitted to intensive care at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston between 2008 and 2019, thereby excluding patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The population consisted of four races/ethnicities: White (87%), Black (7%), Hispanic (4%), and Asian (3%).

Aligning with previous studies, multivariable linear regression analyses showed that Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients had significantly higher SpO₂ readings than White patients in relation to hemoglobin oxygen saturation values, suggesting falsely elevated readings.

Further modeling showed that these same patient groups also received lower oxygen delivery rates, which were not explained directly by race/ethnicity, but instead were mediated by the discrepancy between SpO₂ and hemoglobin oxygen saturation values. In other words, physicians were responding consistently to pulse oximetry readings, rather than exhibiting a direct racial/ethnic bias in their clinical decision-making.

“We’re not providing equal care,” Dr. Gottlieb said in an interview. “It’s not that the patients are sicker, or have other socioeconomic explanations for why this happens to them. It’s us. It’s our technology. And that’s something that really has to be fixed.”

The investigators offered a cautionary view of corrective algorithms, as these “have exacerbated disparities and are subject to ethical concerns;” for example, with glomerular filtration rate estimations in Black patients.

Dr. Gottlieb also cautioned against action by individual physicians, who may now be inclined to change how they interpret pulse oximeter readings based on a patient’s race or ethnicity.

“I don’t think that we can expect physicians, every time they see a patient, to be second guessing whether the number basically reflects the truth,” he said.

Instead, Dr. Gottlieb suggested that the burden of change rests upon the shoulders of institutions, including hospitals and device manufacturers, both of which “really need to take the responsibility” for making sure that pulse oximeters are “equitable and have similar performance across races.”

While Dr. Gottlieb said that skin color likely plays the greatest role in measurement discrepancies, he encouraged stakeholders “to think broadly about this, and not just assume that it’s entirely skin color,” noting a small amount of evidence indicating that blood chemistry may also play a role. Still, he predicted that colorimetry – the direct measurement of skin color – will probably be incorporated into pulse oximeters of the future.
 

Black patients 3X more likely to have hidden hypoxia than White patients

Michael Sjoding, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was one of the first to raise awareness of skin color–related issues with pulse oximeters during the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. His study, which involved more than 10,000 patients, showed that Black patients were threefold more likely to have hidden hypoxia than White patients.

The present study shows that such discrepancies are indeed clinically significant, Dr. Sjoding said in an interview. And these data are needed, he added, to bring about change.

“What is being asked is potentially a big deal,” Dr. Sjoding said. “Pulse oximeters are everywhere, and it would be a big undertaking to redesign pulse oximeters and purchase new pulse oximeters. You need a compelling body of evidence to do that. I think it’s there now, clearly. So I’m hopeful that we’re going to finally move forward, towards having devices that we are confident work accurately in everyone.”

Why it has taken so long to gather this evidence, however, is a thornier topic, considering race-related discrepancies in pulse oximeter readings were first documented more than 3 decades ago.

“We sort of rediscovered something that had been known and had been described in the past,” Dr. Sjoding said. He explained how he and many of his colleagues had completed pulmonary fellowships, yet none of them knew of these potential issues with pulse oximeters until they began to observe differences in their own patients during the pandemic.

“I’ll give previous generations of researchers the benefit of the doubt,” Dr. Sjoding said, pointing out that techniques in data gathering and analysis have advanced considerably over the years. “The types of studies that were done before were very different than what we did.”

Yet Dr. Sjoding entertained the possibility that other factors may have been at play.

“I think definitely there’s a social commentary on prioritization of research,” he said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Sjoding reported no conflicts of interest.

Falsely elevated pulse oximeter readings are leading to less oxygen supplementation for people of color, a recent study finds.

The new research suggests that skin color–related differences in pulse oximeter readings are in fact impacting clinical decision-making, lead author Eric R. Gottlieb, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote. This suggests that technology needs to updated to improve health equity, they continued, in their paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“It has been known for decades that these readings are affected by various surface pigmentations, including nail polish and skin melanin, which may affect light absorption and scattering,” the investigators wrote. “This increases the risk of hidden hypoxemia [among patients with darker skin], in which patients have falsely elevated SpO₂ readings, usually defined as 92% or greater, with a blood hemoglobin oxygen saturation less than 88%.”

Although published reports on this phenomenon date back to the 1980s, clinical significance has been largely discounted, they said, citing a 2008 paper on the topic, which stated that “oximetry need not have exact accuracy” to determine if a patient needs oxygen supplementation.
 

‘We’re not providing equal care’

Questioning the validity of this statement, Dr. Gottlieb and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 3,069 patients admitted to intensive care at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston between 2008 and 2019, thereby excluding patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The population consisted of four races/ethnicities: White (87%), Black (7%), Hispanic (4%), and Asian (3%).

Aligning with previous studies, multivariable linear regression analyses showed that Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients had significantly higher SpO₂ readings than White patients in relation to hemoglobin oxygen saturation values, suggesting falsely elevated readings.

Further modeling showed that these same patient groups also received lower oxygen delivery rates, which were not explained directly by race/ethnicity, but instead were mediated by the discrepancy between SpO₂ and hemoglobin oxygen saturation values. In other words, physicians were responding consistently to pulse oximetry readings, rather than exhibiting a direct racial/ethnic bias in their clinical decision-making.

“We’re not providing equal care,” Dr. Gottlieb said in an interview. “It’s not that the patients are sicker, or have other socioeconomic explanations for why this happens to them. It’s us. It’s our technology. And that’s something that really has to be fixed.”

The investigators offered a cautionary view of corrective algorithms, as these “have exacerbated disparities and are subject to ethical concerns;” for example, with glomerular filtration rate estimations in Black patients.

Dr. Gottlieb also cautioned against action by individual physicians, who may now be inclined to change how they interpret pulse oximeter readings based on a patient’s race or ethnicity.

“I don’t think that we can expect physicians, every time they see a patient, to be second guessing whether the number basically reflects the truth,” he said.

Instead, Dr. Gottlieb suggested that the burden of change rests upon the shoulders of institutions, including hospitals and device manufacturers, both of which “really need to take the responsibility” for making sure that pulse oximeters are “equitable and have similar performance across races.”

While Dr. Gottlieb said that skin color likely plays the greatest role in measurement discrepancies, he encouraged stakeholders “to think broadly about this, and not just assume that it’s entirely skin color,” noting a small amount of evidence indicating that blood chemistry may also play a role. Still, he predicted that colorimetry – the direct measurement of skin color – will probably be incorporated into pulse oximeters of the future.
 

Black patients 3X more likely to have hidden hypoxia than White patients

Michael Sjoding, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was one of the first to raise awareness of skin color–related issues with pulse oximeters during the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. His study, which involved more than 10,000 patients, showed that Black patients were threefold more likely to have hidden hypoxia than White patients.

The present study shows that such discrepancies are indeed clinically significant, Dr. Sjoding said in an interview. And these data are needed, he added, to bring about change.

“What is being asked is potentially a big deal,” Dr. Sjoding said. “Pulse oximeters are everywhere, and it would be a big undertaking to redesign pulse oximeters and purchase new pulse oximeters. You need a compelling body of evidence to do that. I think it’s there now, clearly. So I’m hopeful that we’re going to finally move forward, towards having devices that we are confident work accurately in everyone.”

Why it has taken so long to gather this evidence, however, is a thornier topic, considering race-related discrepancies in pulse oximeter readings were first documented more than 3 decades ago.

“We sort of rediscovered something that had been known and had been described in the past,” Dr. Sjoding said. He explained how he and many of his colleagues had completed pulmonary fellowships, yet none of them knew of these potential issues with pulse oximeters until they began to observe differences in their own patients during the pandemic.

“I’ll give previous generations of researchers the benefit of the doubt,” Dr. Sjoding said, pointing out that techniques in data gathering and analysis have advanced considerably over the years. “The types of studies that were done before were very different than what we did.”

Yet Dr. Sjoding entertained the possibility that other factors may have been at play.

“I think definitely there’s a social commentary on prioritization of research,” he said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Sjoding reported no conflicts of interest.

Falsely elevated pulse oximeter readings are leading to less oxygen supplementation for people of color, a recent study finds.

The new research suggests that skin color–related differences in pulse oximeter readings are in fact impacting clinical decision-making, lead author Eric R. Gottlieb, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote. This suggests that technology needs to updated to improve health equity, they continued, in their paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“It has been known for decades that these readings are affected by various surface pigmentations, including nail polish and skin melanin, which may affect light absorption and scattering,” the investigators wrote. “This increases the risk of hidden hypoxemia [among patients with darker skin], in which patients have falsely elevated SpO₂ readings, usually defined as 92% or greater, with a blood hemoglobin oxygen saturation less than 88%.”

Although published reports on this phenomenon date back to the 1980s, clinical significance has been largely discounted, they said, citing a 2008 paper on the topic, which stated that “oximetry need not have exact accuracy” to determine if a patient needs oxygen supplementation.
 

‘We’re not providing equal care’

Questioning the validity of this statement, Dr. Gottlieb and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 3,069 patients admitted to intensive care at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston between 2008 and 2019, thereby excluding patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The population consisted of four races/ethnicities: White (87%), Black (7%), Hispanic (4%), and Asian (3%).

Aligning with previous studies, multivariable linear regression analyses showed that Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients had significantly higher SpO₂ readings than White patients in relation to hemoglobin oxygen saturation values, suggesting falsely elevated readings.

Further modeling showed that these same patient groups also received lower oxygen delivery rates, which were not explained directly by race/ethnicity, but instead were mediated by the discrepancy between SpO₂ and hemoglobin oxygen saturation values. In other words, physicians were responding consistently to pulse oximetry readings, rather than exhibiting a direct racial/ethnic bias in their clinical decision-making.

“We’re not providing equal care,” Dr. Gottlieb said in an interview. “It’s not that the patients are sicker, or have other socioeconomic explanations for why this happens to them. It’s us. It’s our technology. And that’s something that really has to be fixed.”

The investigators offered a cautionary view of corrective algorithms, as these “have exacerbated disparities and are subject to ethical concerns;” for example, with glomerular filtration rate estimations in Black patients.

Dr. Gottlieb also cautioned against action by individual physicians, who may now be inclined to change how they interpret pulse oximeter readings based on a patient’s race or ethnicity.

“I don’t think that we can expect physicians, every time they see a patient, to be second guessing whether the number basically reflects the truth,” he said.

Instead, Dr. Gottlieb suggested that the burden of change rests upon the shoulders of institutions, including hospitals and device manufacturers, both of which “really need to take the responsibility” for making sure that pulse oximeters are “equitable and have similar performance across races.”

While Dr. Gottlieb said that skin color likely plays the greatest role in measurement discrepancies, he encouraged stakeholders “to think broadly about this, and not just assume that it’s entirely skin color,” noting a small amount of evidence indicating that blood chemistry may also play a role. Still, he predicted that colorimetry – the direct measurement of skin color – will probably be incorporated into pulse oximeters of the future.
 

Black patients 3X more likely to have hidden hypoxia than White patients

Michael Sjoding, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was one of the first to raise awareness of skin color–related issues with pulse oximeters during the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. His study, which involved more than 10,000 patients, showed that Black patients were threefold more likely to have hidden hypoxia than White patients.

The present study shows that such discrepancies are indeed clinically significant, Dr. Sjoding said in an interview. And these data are needed, he added, to bring about change.

“What is being asked is potentially a big deal,” Dr. Sjoding said. “Pulse oximeters are everywhere, and it would be a big undertaking to redesign pulse oximeters and purchase new pulse oximeters. You need a compelling body of evidence to do that. I think it’s there now, clearly. So I’m hopeful that we’re going to finally move forward, towards having devices that we are confident work accurately in everyone.”

Why it has taken so long to gather this evidence, however, is a thornier topic, considering race-related discrepancies in pulse oximeter readings were first documented more than 3 decades ago.

“We sort of rediscovered something that had been known and had been described in the past,” Dr. Sjoding said. He explained how he and many of his colleagues had completed pulmonary fellowships, yet none of them knew of these potential issues with pulse oximeters until they began to observe differences in their own patients during the pandemic.

“I’ll give previous generations of researchers the benefit of the doubt,” Dr. Sjoding said, pointing out that techniques in data gathering and analysis have advanced considerably over the years. “The types of studies that were done before were very different than what we did.”

Yet Dr. Sjoding entertained the possibility that other factors may have been at play.

“I think definitely there’s a social commentary on prioritization of research,” he said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Sjoding reported no conflicts of interest.

Adults with severe asthma (SA) experienced significantly fewer exacerbations on biologic therapies, compared with those who did not use biologics, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

The development of biologics to target specific inflammatory pathways “has transformed the management of uncontrolled SA,” but data on the real-world use of biologics in severe asthma patients treated by subspecialists are limited, wrote Reynold A. Panettieri, Jr., MD, of Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers reviewed data from CHRONICLE, an ongoing, prospective, real-world noninterventional study of adults aged 18 years and older with severe asthma in the United States.

The study population included 2,847 patients enrolled in the CHRONICLE study between February 2018 and February 2021; 68.8% were women, 74.6% were White. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 89 years, with a mean age of 54.2 years.

Biologic use was defined as patients who started or had ongoing use of biologics between 12 months before enrollment and the patient’s most recent data collection. Switches were defined as stopping one biologic and starting another within 6 months; stops were defined as discontinuing a biologic without switching to another within 6 months. A total of 66% of the patients were using biologics at the time of study enrollment. The most common biologic was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), and dupilumab (18%).

Overall, 89% of the patients had ongoing biologic use, 16% had biologic switches, and 13% had stops.

Patients who started biologics or switched biologics had significant reductions in asthma exacerbations at 6 months, compared with nonbiologic users of 58% (1.80 vs. 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs. 0.75 per patient-year), respectively (P < .001 for both). Asthma exacerbations declined by 70% among biologics users for whom data were available for 12 months before and 12 months after starting biologics.

Exacerbations decreased at 6 months after biologic initiation across all subgroups of patients, notably patients with pre-biologic FEV₁ < 80% and patients with FEV₁ ≥ 80% (66% and 53%, respectively); never smokers and current/former smokers (63% and 50%, respectively); and patients with COPD and without COPD (58% and 52%, respectively).

The researchers also found a greater reduction in exacerbations among patients who switched from anti-IgE therapy to anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapy, compared with those who switched among anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapies (58% vs. 46%).

Patients who stopped or switched biologics appeared to have more severe or treatment-refractory disease than those with ongoing biologic use, the researchers noted. The most common reason for stopping or switching was worsening symptoms.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus only on adults in the United States with subspecialist-treated SA, which may limit generalizability to children or other populations, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in clinical decisions and insurance coverage and the inability to conduct longitudinal assessments, they said.

The results demonstrate that starting or switching biologics was consistently associated with fewer exacerbations in severe asthma. However, more research is needed to determine why some patients were not receiving biologics because they were not considered clinically eligible by their subspecialist health care providers, the researchers concluded.

The current study and the CHRONICLE study were supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Panettieri disclosed serving on the advisory boards for and receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genentech, Regeneron, and Novartis.

Adults with severe asthma (SA) experienced significantly fewer exacerbations on biologic therapies, compared with those who did not use biologics, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

The development of biologics to target specific inflammatory pathways “has transformed the management of uncontrolled SA,” but data on the real-world use of biologics in severe asthma patients treated by subspecialists are limited, wrote Reynold A. Panettieri, Jr., MD, of Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers reviewed data from CHRONICLE, an ongoing, prospective, real-world noninterventional study of adults aged 18 years and older with severe asthma in the United States.

The study population included 2,847 patients enrolled in the CHRONICLE study between February 2018 and February 2021; 68.8% were women, 74.6% were White. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 89 years, with a mean age of 54.2 years.

Biologic use was defined as patients who started or had ongoing use of biologics between 12 months before enrollment and the patient’s most recent data collection. Switches were defined as stopping one biologic and starting another within 6 months; stops were defined as discontinuing a biologic without switching to another within 6 months. A total of 66% of the patients were using biologics at the time of study enrollment. The most common biologic was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), and dupilumab (18%).

Overall, 89% of the patients had ongoing biologic use, 16% had biologic switches, and 13% had stops.

Patients who started biologics or switched biologics had significant reductions in asthma exacerbations at 6 months, compared with nonbiologic users of 58% (1.80 vs. 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs. 0.75 per patient-year), respectively (P < .001 for both). Asthma exacerbations declined by 70% among biologics users for whom data were available for 12 months before and 12 months after starting biologics.

Exacerbations decreased at 6 months after biologic initiation across all subgroups of patients, notably patients with pre-biologic FEV₁ < 80% and patients with FEV₁ ≥ 80% (66% and 53%, respectively); never smokers and current/former smokers (63% and 50%, respectively); and patients with COPD and without COPD (58% and 52%, respectively).

The researchers also found a greater reduction in exacerbations among patients who switched from anti-IgE therapy to anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapy, compared with those who switched among anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapies (58% vs. 46%).

Patients who stopped or switched biologics appeared to have more severe or treatment-refractory disease than those with ongoing biologic use, the researchers noted. The most common reason for stopping or switching was worsening symptoms.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus only on adults in the United States with subspecialist-treated SA, which may limit generalizability to children or other populations, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in clinical decisions and insurance coverage and the inability to conduct longitudinal assessments, they said.

The results demonstrate that starting or switching biologics was consistently associated with fewer exacerbations in severe asthma. However, more research is needed to determine why some patients were not receiving biologics because they were not considered clinically eligible by their subspecialist health care providers, the researchers concluded.

The current study and the CHRONICLE study were supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Panettieri disclosed serving on the advisory boards for and receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genentech, Regeneron, and Novartis.

Adults with severe asthma (SA) experienced significantly fewer exacerbations on biologic therapies, compared with those who did not use biologics, based on data from more than 2,000 individuals.

The development of biologics to target specific inflammatory pathways “has transformed the management of uncontrolled SA,” but data on the real-world use of biologics in severe asthma patients treated by subspecialists are limited, wrote Reynold A. Panettieri, Jr., MD, of Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers reviewed data from CHRONICLE, an ongoing, prospective, real-world noninterventional study of adults aged 18 years and older with severe asthma in the United States.

The study population included 2,847 patients enrolled in the CHRONICLE study between February 2018 and February 2021; 68.8% were women, 74.6% were White. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 89 years, with a mean age of 54.2 years.

Biologic use was defined as patients who started or had ongoing use of biologics between 12 months before enrollment and the patient’s most recent data collection. Switches were defined as stopping one biologic and starting another within 6 months; stops were defined as discontinuing a biologic without switching to another within 6 months. A total of 66% of the patients were using biologics at the time of study enrollment. The most common biologic was omalizumab (47%), followed by benralizumab (27%), mepolizumab (26%), and dupilumab (18%).

Overall, 89% of the patients had ongoing biologic use, 16% had biologic switches, and 13% had stops.

Patients who started biologics or switched biologics had significant reductions in asthma exacerbations at 6 months, compared with nonbiologic users of 58% (1.80 vs. 0.76 per patient-year) and 49% (1.47 vs. 0.75 per patient-year), respectively (P < .001 for both). Asthma exacerbations declined by 70% among biologics users for whom data were available for 12 months before and 12 months after starting biologics.

Exacerbations decreased at 6 months after biologic initiation across all subgroups of patients, notably patients with pre-biologic FEV₁ < 80% and patients with FEV₁ ≥ 80% (66% and 53%, respectively); never smokers and current/former smokers (63% and 50%, respectively); and patients with COPD and without COPD (58% and 52%, respectively).

The researchers also found a greater reduction in exacerbations among patients who switched from anti-IgE therapy to anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapy, compared with those who switched among anti–IL-5/IL-5R/IL-4R therapies (58% vs. 46%).

Patients who stopped or switched biologics appeared to have more severe or treatment-refractory disease than those with ongoing biologic use, the researchers noted. The most common reason for stopping or switching was worsening symptoms.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the focus only on adults in the United States with subspecialist-treated SA, which may limit generalizability to children or other populations, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in clinical decisions and insurance coverage and the inability to conduct longitudinal assessments, they said.

The results demonstrate that starting or switching biologics was consistently associated with fewer exacerbations in severe asthma. However, more research is needed to determine why some patients were not receiving biologics because they were not considered clinically eligible by their subspecialist health care providers, the researchers concluded.

The current study and the CHRONICLE study were supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Panettieri disclosed serving on the advisory boards for and receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Genentech, Regeneron, and Novartis.