Pulmonology

Selexipag (Uptravi) does not change the level of daily activity of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), results from the phase 4 TRACE trial suggest.

“We had no preconceived idea if this drug would improve exercise capacity,” said Luke Howard, MD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London. It was clear, however, that 6-minute walk tests conducted a few times a year “don’t paint a picture of what daily life is like for patients on selexipag.”

The oral prostacyclin IP receptor agonist is prescribed to slow the progression of PAH and reduce hospital admissions, but there are no studies that show whether it improves quality of life.

Dr. Howard and his team turned to wearable technology to “capture a snapshot of everyday life,” he explained during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST 2020), held virtually this year.

The primary concern of the investigators was to get TRACE participants – all with PAH – to wear a wrist device; they did not encourage patients to become more active. “We wanted a true picture of the impact of the drug itself,” he noted.

After 24 months of daily tracking, “there was no benefit to increased daily activity for patients taking this drug,” Dr. Howard said in an interview. “That was a bit deflating.”

The daily activity of TRACE participants was “slightly more elevated” in the selexipag group than in the placebo group. “We saw some numerical drops in activity in the placebo group, and a trend that might make a difference over a longer, bigger study, but not in a statically significant way,” he reported.

In the randomized, blinded trial – the first to track the activity of PAH patients – 53 participants received selexipag and 55 received placebo. All 108 wore a wrist accelerometer (GT9X Link) that counted the number of steps taken each day, providing an indication of daily activity.

Device compliance – the mean number of days in which the device was worn for at least 7 hours during a 14-day predrug period – was similar in the selexipag and placebo groups (13.2 vs 13.0 days).

“We wanted to make sure we had people who were stable and weren’t enrolled in a rehabilitation program; we didn’t want any competing influences,” Dr. Howard explained. All in all, the participants were in pretty good shape. “There was a low risk of a bad outcome.”

The primary endpoint was change in activity from baseline to week 24. The secondary endpoints were PAH-SYMPACT health quality-of-life tests and 6-minute walk distance.
 

Similar activity levels in both groups

As expected in a population in which the majority of patients meet the criteria for WHO functional class II PAH, all participants had low PAH-SYMPACT domain scores throughout the trial.

All adverse events were “consistent with the known profile” of selexipag, and there were no deaths, Dr. Howard reported.

“We did not show any significant benefit to taking the drug,” he said, but the drug is marketed for the prevention of disease progression, and this finding “doesn’t change that.”
 

Pulmonary rehabilitation

“Pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the most vital management issues with chronic lung disease,” Riddhi Upadhyay, MD, of Carle Foundation Hospital in Urbana, Ill., said during her CHEST 2020 presentation on improving PAH rehabilitation referral rates.

“We know it improves exercise capacity, lung function, and decreases total hospital stays and recurrent hospital admission,” she explained. And studies have shown that PAH rehabilitation “also reduces frailty and improves quality of life.”

In their study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues showed that when pulmonary rehabilitation is added to the discharge order set, referrals increase by 60%.

They attribute their success to “recognizing the benefits of pulmonary rehab and understanding where interventions are required.”

An encouraging takeaway from the TRACE data is that it established that daily activity can be tracked in this patient population. “We think we might need to encourage these patients to get active, maybe combine the drug with a formal rehabilitation program; that might increase motivation,” Dr. Howard said.

“People don’t necessarily do more just because they can,” he noted.

Dr. Howard has received consulting fees from Actelion.
 

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

Selexipag (Uptravi) does not change the level of daily activity of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), results from the phase 4 TRACE trial suggest.

“We had no preconceived idea if this drug would improve exercise capacity,” said Luke Howard, MD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London. It was clear, however, that 6-minute walk tests conducted a few times a year “don’t paint a picture of what daily life is like for patients on selexipag.”

The oral prostacyclin IP receptor agonist is prescribed to slow the progression of PAH and reduce hospital admissions, but there are no studies that show whether it improves quality of life.

Dr. Howard and his team turned to wearable technology to “capture a snapshot of everyday life,” he explained during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST 2020), held virtually this year.

The primary concern of the investigators was to get TRACE participants – all with PAH – to wear a wrist device; they did not encourage patients to become more active. “We wanted a true picture of the impact of the drug itself,” he noted.

After 24 months of daily tracking, “there was no benefit to increased daily activity for patients taking this drug,” Dr. Howard said in an interview. “That was a bit deflating.”

The daily activity of TRACE participants was “slightly more elevated” in the selexipag group than in the placebo group. “We saw some numerical drops in activity in the placebo group, and a trend that might make a difference over a longer, bigger study, but not in a statically significant way,” he reported.

In the randomized, blinded trial – the first to track the activity of PAH patients – 53 participants received selexipag and 55 received placebo. All 108 wore a wrist accelerometer (GT9X Link) that counted the number of steps taken each day, providing an indication of daily activity.

Device compliance – the mean number of days in which the device was worn for at least 7 hours during a 14-day predrug period – was similar in the selexipag and placebo groups (13.2 vs 13.0 days).

“We wanted to make sure we had people who were stable and weren’t enrolled in a rehabilitation program; we didn’t want any competing influences,” Dr. Howard explained. All in all, the participants were in pretty good shape. “There was a low risk of a bad outcome.”

The primary endpoint was change in activity from baseline to week 24. The secondary endpoints were PAH-SYMPACT health quality-of-life tests and 6-minute walk distance.
 

Similar activity levels in both groups

As expected in a population in which the majority of patients meet the criteria for WHO functional class II PAH, all participants had low PAH-SYMPACT domain scores throughout the trial.

All adverse events were “consistent with the known profile” of selexipag, and there were no deaths, Dr. Howard reported.

“We did not show any significant benefit to taking the drug,” he said, but the drug is marketed for the prevention of disease progression, and this finding “doesn’t change that.”
 

Pulmonary rehabilitation

“Pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the most vital management issues with chronic lung disease,” Riddhi Upadhyay, MD, of Carle Foundation Hospital in Urbana, Ill., said during her CHEST 2020 presentation on improving PAH rehabilitation referral rates.

“We know it improves exercise capacity, lung function, and decreases total hospital stays and recurrent hospital admission,” she explained. And studies have shown that PAH rehabilitation “also reduces frailty and improves quality of life.”

In their study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues showed that when pulmonary rehabilitation is added to the discharge order set, referrals increase by 60%.

They attribute their success to “recognizing the benefits of pulmonary rehab and understanding where interventions are required.”

An encouraging takeaway from the TRACE data is that it established that daily activity can be tracked in this patient population. “We think we might need to encourage these patients to get active, maybe combine the drug with a formal rehabilitation program; that might increase motivation,” Dr. Howard said.

“People don’t necessarily do more just because they can,” he noted.

Dr. Howard has received consulting fees from Actelion.
 

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

Selexipag (Uptravi) does not change the level of daily activity of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), results from the phase 4 TRACE trial suggest.

“We had no preconceived idea if this drug would improve exercise capacity,” said Luke Howard, MD, of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London. It was clear, however, that 6-minute walk tests conducted a few times a year “don’t paint a picture of what daily life is like for patients on selexipag.”

The oral prostacyclin IP receptor agonist is prescribed to slow the progression of PAH and reduce hospital admissions, but there are no studies that show whether it improves quality of life.

Dr. Howard and his team turned to wearable technology to “capture a snapshot of everyday life,” he explained during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST 2020), held virtually this year.

The primary concern of the investigators was to get TRACE participants – all with PAH – to wear a wrist device; they did not encourage patients to become more active. “We wanted a true picture of the impact of the drug itself,” he noted.

After 24 months of daily tracking, “there was no benefit to increased daily activity for patients taking this drug,” Dr. Howard said in an interview. “That was a bit deflating.”

The daily activity of TRACE participants was “slightly more elevated” in the selexipag group than in the placebo group. “We saw some numerical drops in activity in the placebo group, and a trend that might make a difference over a longer, bigger study, but not in a statically significant way,” he reported.

In the randomized, blinded trial – the first to track the activity of PAH patients – 53 participants received selexipag and 55 received placebo. All 108 wore a wrist accelerometer (GT9X Link) that counted the number of steps taken each day, providing an indication of daily activity.

Device compliance – the mean number of days in which the device was worn for at least 7 hours during a 14-day predrug period – was similar in the selexipag and placebo groups (13.2 vs 13.0 days).

“We wanted to make sure we had people who were stable and weren’t enrolled in a rehabilitation program; we didn’t want any competing influences,” Dr. Howard explained. All in all, the participants were in pretty good shape. “There was a low risk of a bad outcome.”

The primary endpoint was change in activity from baseline to week 24. The secondary endpoints were PAH-SYMPACT health quality-of-life tests and 6-minute walk distance.
 

Similar activity levels in both groups

As expected in a population in which the majority of patients meet the criteria for WHO functional class II PAH, all participants had low PAH-SYMPACT domain scores throughout the trial.

All adverse events were “consistent with the known profile” of selexipag, and there were no deaths, Dr. Howard reported.

“We did not show any significant benefit to taking the drug,” he said, but the drug is marketed for the prevention of disease progression, and this finding “doesn’t change that.”
 

Pulmonary rehabilitation

“Pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the most vital management issues with chronic lung disease,” Riddhi Upadhyay, MD, of Carle Foundation Hospital in Urbana, Ill., said during her CHEST 2020 presentation on improving PAH rehabilitation referral rates.

“We know it improves exercise capacity, lung function, and decreases total hospital stays and recurrent hospital admission,” she explained. And studies have shown that PAH rehabilitation “also reduces frailty and improves quality of life.”

In their study, Dr. Upadhyay and colleagues showed that when pulmonary rehabilitation is added to the discharge order set, referrals increase by 60%.

They attribute their success to “recognizing the benefits of pulmonary rehab and understanding where interventions are required.”

An encouraging takeaway from the TRACE data is that it established that daily activity can be tracked in this patient population. “We think we might need to encourage these patients to get active, maybe combine the drug with a formal rehabilitation program; that might increase motivation,” Dr. Howard said.

“People don’t necessarily do more just because they can,” he noted.

Dr. Howard has received consulting fees from Actelion.
 

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

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

It’s an electronic cigarette maker’s dream, but a public health nightmare: The confluence of social isolation and anxiety resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to make recent progress against e-cigarette use among teens go up in smoke.

“Stress and worsening mental health issues are well-known predisposing factors for smoking, both in quantity and frequency and in relapse,” said Mary Cataletto, MD, FCCP, clinical professor of pediatrics at New York University Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, during a webinar on e-cigarettes and vaping with asthma in the time of COVID-19, hosted by the Allergy & Asthma Network.

Prior to the pandemic, public health experts appeared to be making inroads into curbing e-cigarette use, according to results of the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a cross-sectional school-based survey of students from grades 6 to 12.

“In 2020, approximately 1 in 5 high school stu­dents and 1 in 20 middle school students currently used e-cigarettes. By comparison, in 2019, 27.5% of high school students (4.11 million) and 10.5% of middle school students (1.24 million) reported current e-cigarette use,” wrote Brian A. King, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, in an article reporting those results.

“We definitely believe that there was a real decline that occurred up until March. Those data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey were collected prior to youth leaving school settings and prior to the implementation of social distancing and other measures,” said Dr. King, deputy director for research translation in the Office on Smoking and Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That said, the jury’s still out on what’s going to happen with youth use during the coming year, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic” he said in an interview.
 

Flavor of the moment

Even though the data through March 2020 showed a distinct decline in e-cigarette use, Dr. King and colleagues found that 3.6 million U.S. adolescents still currently used e-cigarettes in 2020; among current users, more than 80% reported using flavored e-cigarettes.

Dr. Cataletto said in an interview that the 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey continues to report widespread use of flavored e-cigarettes among young smokers despite Food and Drug Administration admonitions to manufacturers and retailers to remove unauthorized e-cigarettes from the market.

On Jan. 2, 2020, the FDA reported a finalized enforcement policy directed against “unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint.”

But as Dr. King and other investigators also mentioned in a separate analysis of e-cigarette unit sales, that enforcement policy applies only to prefilled cartridge e-cigarette products, such as those made by JUUL, and that while sales of mint- or fruit-flavored products of this type declined from September 2014 to May 2020, there was an increase in the sale of disposable e-cigarettes with flavors other than menthol or tobacco.

Dr. Cataletto pointed out that this vaping trend has coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that, on March 13, 2020, just 2 days after the World Health Organization declared that spread of COVID-19 was officially a pandemic, 16 states closed schools, leaving millions of middle school– and high school–age children at loose ends. She said: “This raised a number of concerns. Would students who used e-cigarettes be at increased risk of COVID-19? Would e-cigarette use increase again due to the social isolation and anxiety as predicted for tobacco smokers? How would access and availability impact e-cigarette use?

“It’s possible that use may go down, because youth may have less access to their typical social sources or other manners in which they obtain the product.” Dr. King said. “Alternatively, youth may have more disposable time on their hands and may be open to other sources of access to these products, and so use could increase.”

There is evidence to suggest that the latter scenario may be true, according to investigators who surveyed more than 1,000 Canadian adolescents about alcohol use, binge drinking, cannabis use, and vaping in the 3 weeks directly before and after social distancing measures took effect.

The investigators found that the frequency of both alcohol and cannabis use increased during social isolation, and that, although about half of respondents reported solitary substance use, 32% reported using substances with peers via technology, and 24% reported using substances face to face, despite social distancing mandates, reported Tara M. Dumas, PhD, from Huron University College, London, Ont.

“These authors suggest that teens who feared loss of friendships during quarantine might be more willing to engage in risky behaviors such as face to face substance use to maintain social status, while solitary substance use was related to both COVID19 fears and depressive symptomatology,” Dr. Cataletto said.
 

E-cigarettes and COVID-19

A recent survey of 4,351 adolescents and young adults in the United States showed that a COVID-19 diagnosis was five times more likely among those who had ever used e-cigarettes, seven times more likely among conventional cigarette and e-cigarette uses, and nearly seven times more likely among those who had used both within the past 30 days .

Perhaps not surprisingly, adolescents and young adults with asthma who also vape may be at especially high risk for COVID-19, but the exact effect may be hard to pin down with current levels of evidence.

“Prior to the pandemic we did see both new-onset asthma and asthma exacerbations in teens who reported either vaping or dual use with tobacco products,” Dr. Cataletto said. “However, numbers were small, were confounded by the bias of subspecialty practice, and the onset of the pandemic, which affected not only face-to-face visits but the opportunity to perform pulmonary function testing for a number of months.”

Dr. King noted: “There is an emerging body of science that does indicate that there could be some respiratory risks related to e-cigarette use, particularly among certain populations. ... That said, there’s no conclusive link between e-cigarette use and specific disease outcomes, which typically requires a robust body of different science conducted in multiple settings.”

He said that e-cigarette vapors contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, both of which have previously been associated with respiratory risk, including complications from asthma.
 

An ounce of prevention

“When it comes to cessation, we do know that about 50% of youth who are using tobacco products including e-cigarettes, want to quit, and about the same proportion make an effort to quit, so there’s certainly a will there, but we don’t clearly have an evidence-based way,” Dr. King said.

Combinations of behavioral interventions including face-to-face consultations and digital or telephone support can be helpful, Dr. Cataletto said, but both she and Dr. King agree that prevention is the most effective method of reducing e-cigarette use among teens and young adults, including peer support and education efforts.

Asked how she gets her patients to report honestly about their habits, Dr. Cataletto acknowledged that “this is a challenge for many kids. Some are unaware that many of the commercially available e-cigarette products contain nicotine and they are not ‘just vaping flavoring.’ Ongoing education is important, and it is happening in schools, in pediatrician’s offices, at home and in the community.”

Dr. Cataletto and Dr. King reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Cataletto serves on the editorial advisory board for Chest Physician.

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

National guidelines failed to classify many younger African American lung cancer patients as being eligible for lung cancer screening in a recent retrospective study, the lead author reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The finding highlights a health disparity issue that may be addressed through an update of those guidelines that is in the works, said Carol Velez Martinez, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in Shreveport, La.

About one-third of the lung cancer patients in the retrospective cohort study were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) based on the 2013 lung cancer guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), said Dr. Velez Martinez.

By contrast, 12.5% of screening-ineligible patients would have been counted as LDCT eligible based on guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), Dr. Velez Martinez and coauthors found in their analysis.

In a draft recommendation statement posted July 7, the USPSTF said they would now recommend that screening at age 50 years, rather than 55, and that the pack-years of smoking history that would make an individual eligible for screening would be dropped from 30 pack-years to 20, changes that task force members said would be more inclusive of African Americans and women.

Dr. Velez Martinez said she is looking forward to a formal recommendation from USPSTF soon: “I’m hoping that’s where they’re heading,” she said in an interview. “When I’m in practice as a resident, I actually bring it up to my patients, and if I have to call the insurance I don’t have a problem – but I still have to call them because they’re still going by the prior guidelines.”

“I think there are going to be a lot of other health disparities,” Dr. Revelo said in an interview. “[Dr. Velez Martinez’s] study was limited by the fact that she cared mostly for Caucasians and also African Americans, but maybe no Latinos or Hispanics that I’m sure would also be affected if we were looking to that in a bigger or national study.”

The 2013 USPSTF guidelines were based on benefits observed in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which indicated a 20% relative risk reduction in death from lung cancer; however, the generalizability of the study beyond White males has been questioned, said Dr. Velez Martinez in a presentation at the CHEST annual meeting.

About 90% of NSLT participants were White and 59% were male, according to results published in 2011.

Other studies have shown that African Americans are more likely to get lung cancer than Whites, despite comparable smoking rates between the races, and that African American men are more likely to die from lung cancer than White men, Dr. Velez Martinez said. Many African Americans live below the poverty line, which means they have limited resources for insurance and health providers, and they also participate less often in clinical trials, she added.

In their retrospective observational cohort study, Dr. Velez Martinez and coinvestigators reviewed 1,500 medical records of patients with newly diagnosed stage 1-4 lung cancers from the LSU Health Science Center Shreveport between 2011 and 2015.

They found that 33% of those lung cancer patients were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, meaning they did not meet the 2013 USPSTF screening guidelines, which recommend annual LDCT in adults aged 55-80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Next, they sought to classify those screening-ineligible patients based on NCCN guidelines, which recommend LDCT in patients 50 years of age or older with at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and a 6-year risk of lung cancer of at least 1.3% based on the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator. The Tammemagi calculator considers factors such as age, education, body mass index, prior lung disease, familial cancer history, race and ethnicity, and smoking history.

After applying the risk stratification, the investigators found that 12.5% of these patients would have been categorized as high risk and therefore recommended for LDCT, and of that group, more than 65% were African American, Dr. Velez Martinez reported.

Dr. Revelo, who chaired the CHEST session where the findings were reported, said that shared decision-making will still be as important regardless of any changes to lung screening guidelines given the recognized potential harms of LDCT screening, such as false positives, radiation exposure, and psychological distress.

“I think we will continue to have a very personal conversation and make important decisions focused on what the patient wants,” he said.

Authors reported no disclosures.

Unlike previous studies focused on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in ambulatory care office visits, Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, and associates have uncovered evidence of the overall benefit influenza vaccines play in reducing hospitalizations and emergency department visits in pediatric influenza patients.

Yarinca/istockphoto

“Our data provide important VE estimates against severe influenza in children,” the researchers noted in Pediatrics, adding that the findings “provide important evidence supporting the annual recommendation that all children 6 months and older should receive influenza vaccination.”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues collected ongoing surveillance data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN), which is a network of pediatric hospitals across seven cities, including Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Pittsburgh; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; and Seattle. The influenza season encompassed the period Nov. 7, 2018 to June 21, 2019.

A total of 2,748 hospitalized children and 2,676 children who had completed ED visits that did not lead to hospitalization were included. Once those under 6 months were excluded, 1,792 hospitalized children were included in the VE analysis; of these, 226 (13%) tested positive for influenza infection, including 211 (93%) with influenza A viruses and 15 (7%) with influenza B viruses. Fully 1,611 of the patients (90%), had verified vaccine status, while 181 (10%) had solely parental reported vaccine status. The researchers reported 88 (5%) of the patients received mechanical ventilation and 7 (<1%) died.

Most noteworthy, the researchers observed a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations by 41% in children vaccinated against the flu. They further estimated a significant reduction in hospitalizations linked to A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses, even in the presence of circulating A(H3N2) viruses that differed from the A(H3N2) vaccine component.

Studies from other countries during the same time period showed that while “significant protection against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits and hospitalizations among children infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses” was observed, the same could not be said for protection against A(H3N2) viruses, which varied among pediatric outpatients in the United States (24%), in England (17% outpatient; 31% inpatient), Europe (46%), and Canada (48%). They explained that such variation in vaccine protection is multifactorial, and includes virus-, host-, and environment-related factors. They also noted that regional variations in circulating viruses, host factors including age, imprinting, and previous vaccination could explain the study’s finding of vaccine protection against both A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses.

When comparing VE estimates between ED visits and hospitalizations, the researchers observed one significant difference, that “hospitalized children likely represent more medically complex patients, with 58% having underlying medical conditions and 38% reporting at lease one hospitalization in the past year, compared with 28% and 14% respectively, among ED participants.”

Strengths of the study included the prospective multisite enrollment that provided data across diverse locations and representation from pediatric hospitalizations and ED care, which were not previously strongly represented in the literature. The single-season study with small sample size was considered a limitation, as was the inability to evaluate full and partial vaccine status. Vaccine data also were limited for many of the ED patients observed.

Dr. Campbell and colleagues did caution that while they consider their test-negative design optimal for evaluating both hospitalized and ED patients, they feel their results should not be “interpreted as VE against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits or infections that are not medically attended.”

In a separate interview, Michael E. Pichichero, MD, director of the Rochester General Hospital Research Institute and a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), observed: “There are really no surprises here. A well done contemporary study confirms again the benefits of annual influenza vaccinations for children. Viral coinfections involving SARS-CoV-2 and influenza have been reported from Australia to cause heightened illnesses. That observation provides further impetus for parents to have their children receive influenza vaccinations.”

The researchers cited multiple sources of financial support for their ongoing work, including Sanofi, Quidel, Moderna, Karius, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Funding for this study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pichichero said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Campbell AP et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1368.

Unlike previous studies focused on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in ambulatory care office visits, Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, and associates have uncovered evidence of the overall benefit influenza vaccines play in reducing hospitalizations and emergency department visits in pediatric influenza patients.

Yarinca/istockphoto

“Our data provide important VE estimates against severe influenza in children,” the researchers noted in Pediatrics, adding that the findings “provide important evidence supporting the annual recommendation that all children 6 months and older should receive influenza vaccination.”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues collected ongoing surveillance data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN), which is a network of pediatric hospitals across seven cities, including Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Pittsburgh; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; and Seattle. The influenza season encompassed the period Nov. 7, 2018 to June 21, 2019.

A total of 2,748 hospitalized children and 2,676 children who had completed ED visits that did not lead to hospitalization were included. Once those under 6 months were excluded, 1,792 hospitalized children were included in the VE analysis; of these, 226 (13%) tested positive for influenza infection, including 211 (93%) with influenza A viruses and 15 (7%) with influenza B viruses. Fully 1,611 of the patients (90%), had verified vaccine status, while 181 (10%) had solely parental reported vaccine status. The researchers reported 88 (5%) of the patients received mechanical ventilation and 7 (<1%) died.

Most noteworthy, the researchers observed a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations by 41% in children vaccinated against the flu. They further estimated a significant reduction in hospitalizations linked to A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses, even in the presence of circulating A(H3N2) viruses that differed from the A(H3N2) vaccine component.

Studies from other countries during the same time period showed that while “significant protection against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits and hospitalizations among children infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses” was observed, the same could not be said for protection against A(H3N2) viruses, which varied among pediatric outpatients in the United States (24%), in England (17% outpatient; 31% inpatient), Europe (46%), and Canada (48%). They explained that such variation in vaccine protection is multifactorial, and includes virus-, host-, and environment-related factors. They also noted that regional variations in circulating viruses, host factors including age, imprinting, and previous vaccination could explain the study’s finding of vaccine protection against both A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses.

When comparing VE estimates between ED visits and hospitalizations, the researchers observed one significant difference, that “hospitalized children likely represent more medically complex patients, with 58% having underlying medical conditions and 38% reporting at lease one hospitalization in the past year, compared with 28% and 14% respectively, among ED participants.”

Strengths of the study included the prospective multisite enrollment that provided data across diverse locations and representation from pediatric hospitalizations and ED care, which were not previously strongly represented in the literature. The single-season study with small sample size was considered a limitation, as was the inability to evaluate full and partial vaccine status. Vaccine data also were limited for many of the ED patients observed.

Dr. Campbell and colleagues did caution that while they consider their test-negative design optimal for evaluating both hospitalized and ED patients, they feel their results should not be “interpreted as VE against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits or infections that are not medically attended.”

In a separate interview, Michael E. Pichichero, MD, director of the Rochester General Hospital Research Institute and a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), observed: “There are really no surprises here. A well done contemporary study confirms again the benefits of annual influenza vaccinations for children. Viral coinfections involving SARS-CoV-2 and influenza have been reported from Australia to cause heightened illnesses. That observation provides further impetus for parents to have their children receive influenza vaccinations.”

The researchers cited multiple sources of financial support for their ongoing work, including Sanofi, Quidel, Moderna, Karius, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Funding for this study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pichichero said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Campbell AP et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1368.

Unlike previous studies focused on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in ambulatory care office visits, Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, and associates have uncovered evidence of the overall benefit influenza vaccines play in reducing hospitalizations and emergency department visits in pediatric influenza patients.

Yarinca/istockphoto

“Our data provide important VE estimates against severe influenza in children,” the researchers noted in Pediatrics, adding that the findings “provide important evidence supporting the annual recommendation that all children 6 months and older should receive influenza vaccination.”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues collected ongoing surveillance data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN), which is a network of pediatric hospitals across seven cities, including Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Pittsburgh; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; and Seattle. The influenza season encompassed the period Nov. 7, 2018 to June 21, 2019.

A total of 2,748 hospitalized children and 2,676 children who had completed ED visits that did not lead to hospitalization were included. Once those under 6 months were excluded, 1,792 hospitalized children were included in the VE analysis; of these, 226 (13%) tested positive for influenza infection, including 211 (93%) with influenza A viruses and 15 (7%) with influenza B viruses. Fully 1,611 of the patients (90%), had verified vaccine status, while 181 (10%) had solely parental reported vaccine status. The researchers reported 88 (5%) of the patients received mechanical ventilation and 7 (<1%) died.

Most noteworthy, the researchers observed a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations by 41% in children vaccinated against the flu. They further estimated a significant reduction in hospitalizations linked to A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses, even in the presence of circulating A(H3N2) viruses that differed from the A(H3N2) vaccine component.

Studies from other countries during the same time period showed that while “significant protection against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits and hospitalizations among children infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses” was observed, the same could not be said for protection against A(H3N2) viruses, which varied among pediatric outpatients in the United States (24%), in England (17% outpatient; 31% inpatient), Europe (46%), and Canada (48%). They explained that such variation in vaccine protection is multifactorial, and includes virus-, host-, and environment-related factors. They also noted that regional variations in circulating viruses, host factors including age, imprinting, and previous vaccination could explain the study’s finding of vaccine protection against both A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses.

When comparing VE estimates between ED visits and hospitalizations, the researchers observed one significant difference, that “hospitalized children likely represent more medically complex patients, with 58% having underlying medical conditions and 38% reporting at lease one hospitalization in the past year, compared with 28% and 14% respectively, among ED participants.”

Strengths of the study included the prospective multisite enrollment that provided data across diverse locations and representation from pediatric hospitalizations and ED care, which were not previously strongly represented in the literature. The single-season study with small sample size was considered a limitation, as was the inability to evaluate full and partial vaccine status. Vaccine data also were limited for many of the ED patients observed.

Dr. Campbell and colleagues did caution that while they consider their test-negative design optimal for evaluating both hospitalized and ED patients, they feel their results should not be “interpreted as VE against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits or infections that are not medically attended.”

In a separate interview, Michael E. Pichichero, MD, director of the Rochester General Hospital Research Institute and a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), observed: “There are really no surprises here. A well done contemporary study confirms again the benefits of annual influenza vaccinations for children. Viral coinfections involving SARS-CoV-2 and influenza have been reported from Australia to cause heightened illnesses. That observation provides further impetus for parents to have their children receive influenza vaccinations.”

The researchers cited multiple sources of financial support for their ongoing work, including Sanofi, Quidel, Moderna, Karius, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Funding for this study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pichichero said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Campbell AP et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1368.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Elevated pulmonary artery diastolic pressure is “perhaps the best predictor of bad outcomes in patients with heart failure, including hospitalization and death,” and new evidence clearly showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin cuts this metric in patients by a clinically significant amount, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The evidence he collected from a total of 65 heart failure patients with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction is the first documentation from a randomized, controlled study to show a direct effect by a SGLT2 inhibitor on pulmonary artery (PA) pressures.

Other key findings were that the drop in PA diastolic pressure with empagliflozin treatment compared with placebo became discernible early (within the first 4 weeks on treatment), that the pressure-lowering effect steadily grew over time, and that it showed no link to the intensity of loop diuretic treatment, which held steady during 12 weeks on treatment and 13 weeks of overall monitoring.

The study’s primary endpoint was the change from baseline in PA diastolic pressure after 12 weeks on treatment. The 31 patients who completed the full 12-week course had an average drop in their PA diastolic pressure of about 1.5 mm Hg, compared with 28 patients who completed 12 weeks on placebo. Average PA diastolic pressure at baseline was about 21 mm Hg in both treatment arms, and on treatment this fell by more than 0.5 mm Hg among those who received empagliflozin and rose by close to 1 mm Hg among control patients.

“There appears to be a direct effect of empagliflozin on pulmonary artery pressure that’s not been previously demonstrated” by an SGLT2 inhibitor, Dr. Kosiborod said. “I think this is one mechanism of action” for this drug class. “If you control pulmonary artery filling pressures you can prevent hospitalizations and deaths.”
 

Small reductions matter

“Small pressure differences are particularly important for pulmonary hypertension,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and the report’s designated discussant.

“In the Vanderbilt heart failure database, patients with a pulmonary artery mean pressure of 20-24 mm Hg had 30% higher mortality than patients with lower pressures,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “This has led to a new definition of pulmonary hypertension, a mean pulmonary artery pressure above at or above 20 mm Hg.”

In Dr. Kosiborod’s study, patients began with an average PA mean pressure of about 30 mm Hg, and empagliflozin treatment led to a reduction in this metric with about the same magnitude as its effect on PA diastolic pressure. Empagliflozin also produced a similar reduction in average PA systolic pressure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A study built on ambulatory PA monitoring

The results “also provide more proof for the concept of ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring” in patients with heart failure to monitor their status, she added. The study enrolled only patients who had already received a CardioMEMS implant as part of their routine care. This device allows for frequent, noninvasive monitoring of PA pressures. Researchers collected PA pressure data from patients twice daily for the entire 13-week study.

The EMBRACE HF (Empagliflozin Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure) study enrolled patients with established heart failure, a CardioMEMS implant, and New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms at any of eight U.S. centers. Patients averaged about 65 years old, and slightly more than half had class III disease, which denotes marked limitation of physical activity.

Despite the brief treatment period, patients who received empagliflozin showed other evidence of benefit including a trend toward improved quality of life scores, reduced levels of two different forms of brain natriuretic peptide, and significant weight loss, compared with controls, that averaged 2.4 kg.

The mechanism by which empagliflozin and other drugs in its class might lower PA filling pressures is unclear, but Dr. Kosiborod stressed that the consistent level of loop diuretic use during the study seems to rule out a diuretic effect from the SGLT2 inhibitor as having a role. A pulmonary vasculature effect is “much more likely,” perhaps mediated through modified endothelial function and vasodilation, he suggested.

EMBRACE HF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance) along with Eli Lilly. Dr. Kosiborod has received research support and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has received honoraria from several other companies. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Elevated pulmonary artery diastolic pressure is “perhaps the best predictor of bad outcomes in patients with heart failure, including hospitalization and death,” and new evidence clearly showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin cuts this metric in patients by a clinically significant amount, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The evidence he collected from a total of 65 heart failure patients with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction is the first documentation from a randomized, controlled study to show a direct effect by a SGLT2 inhibitor on pulmonary artery (PA) pressures.

Other key findings were that the drop in PA diastolic pressure with empagliflozin treatment compared with placebo became discernible early (within the first 4 weeks on treatment), that the pressure-lowering effect steadily grew over time, and that it showed no link to the intensity of loop diuretic treatment, which held steady during 12 weeks on treatment and 13 weeks of overall monitoring.

The study’s primary endpoint was the change from baseline in PA diastolic pressure after 12 weeks on treatment. The 31 patients who completed the full 12-week course had an average drop in their PA diastolic pressure of about 1.5 mm Hg, compared with 28 patients who completed 12 weeks on placebo. Average PA diastolic pressure at baseline was about 21 mm Hg in both treatment arms, and on treatment this fell by more than 0.5 mm Hg among those who received empagliflozin and rose by close to 1 mm Hg among control patients.

“There appears to be a direct effect of empagliflozin on pulmonary artery pressure that’s not been previously demonstrated” by an SGLT2 inhibitor, Dr. Kosiborod said. “I think this is one mechanism of action” for this drug class. “If you control pulmonary artery filling pressures you can prevent hospitalizations and deaths.”
 

Small reductions matter

“Small pressure differences are particularly important for pulmonary hypertension,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and the report’s designated discussant.

“In the Vanderbilt heart failure database, patients with a pulmonary artery mean pressure of 20-24 mm Hg had 30% higher mortality than patients with lower pressures,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “This has led to a new definition of pulmonary hypertension, a mean pulmonary artery pressure above at or above 20 mm Hg.”

In Dr. Kosiborod’s study, patients began with an average PA mean pressure of about 30 mm Hg, and empagliflozin treatment led to a reduction in this metric with about the same magnitude as its effect on PA diastolic pressure. Empagliflozin also produced a similar reduction in average PA systolic pressure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A study built on ambulatory PA monitoring

The results “also provide more proof for the concept of ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring” in patients with heart failure to monitor their status, she added. The study enrolled only patients who had already received a CardioMEMS implant as part of their routine care. This device allows for frequent, noninvasive monitoring of PA pressures. Researchers collected PA pressure data from patients twice daily for the entire 13-week study.

The EMBRACE HF (Empagliflozin Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure) study enrolled patients with established heart failure, a CardioMEMS implant, and New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms at any of eight U.S. centers. Patients averaged about 65 years old, and slightly more than half had class III disease, which denotes marked limitation of physical activity.

Despite the brief treatment period, patients who received empagliflozin showed other evidence of benefit including a trend toward improved quality of life scores, reduced levels of two different forms of brain natriuretic peptide, and significant weight loss, compared with controls, that averaged 2.4 kg.

The mechanism by which empagliflozin and other drugs in its class might lower PA filling pressures is unclear, but Dr. Kosiborod stressed that the consistent level of loop diuretic use during the study seems to rule out a diuretic effect from the SGLT2 inhibitor as having a role. A pulmonary vasculature effect is “much more likely,” perhaps mediated through modified endothelial function and vasodilation, he suggested.

EMBRACE HF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance) along with Eli Lilly. Dr. Kosiborod has received research support and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has received honoraria from several other companies. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Elevated pulmonary artery diastolic pressure is “perhaps the best predictor of bad outcomes in patients with heart failure, including hospitalization and death,” and new evidence clearly showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin cuts this metric in patients by a clinically significant amount, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The evidence he collected from a total of 65 heart failure patients with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction is the first documentation from a randomized, controlled study to show a direct effect by a SGLT2 inhibitor on pulmonary artery (PA) pressures.

Other key findings were that the drop in PA diastolic pressure with empagliflozin treatment compared with placebo became discernible early (within the first 4 weeks on treatment), that the pressure-lowering effect steadily grew over time, and that it showed no link to the intensity of loop diuretic treatment, which held steady during 12 weeks on treatment and 13 weeks of overall monitoring.

The study’s primary endpoint was the change from baseline in PA diastolic pressure after 12 weeks on treatment. The 31 patients who completed the full 12-week course had an average drop in their PA diastolic pressure of about 1.5 mm Hg, compared with 28 patients who completed 12 weeks on placebo. Average PA diastolic pressure at baseline was about 21 mm Hg in both treatment arms, and on treatment this fell by more than 0.5 mm Hg among those who received empagliflozin and rose by close to 1 mm Hg among control patients.

“There appears to be a direct effect of empagliflozin on pulmonary artery pressure that’s not been previously demonstrated” by an SGLT2 inhibitor, Dr. Kosiborod said. “I think this is one mechanism of action” for this drug class. “If you control pulmonary artery filling pressures you can prevent hospitalizations and deaths.”
 

Small reductions matter

“Small pressure differences are particularly important for pulmonary hypertension,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and the report’s designated discussant.

“In the Vanderbilt heart failure database, patients with a pulmonary artery mean pressure of 20-24 mm Hg had 30% higher mortality than patients with lower pressures,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “This has led to a new definition of pulmonary hypertension, a mean pulmonary artery pressure above at or above 20 mm Hg.”

In Dr. Kosiborod’s study, patients began with an average PA mean pressure of about 30 mm Hg, and empagliflozin treatment led to a reduction in this metric with about the same magnitude as its effect on PA diastolic pressure. Empagliflozin also produced a similar reduction in average PA systolic pressure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A study built on ambulatory PA monitoring

The results “also provide more proof for the concept of ambulatory hemodynamic monitoring” in patients with heart failure to monitor their status, she added. The study enrolled only patients who had already received a CardioMEMS implant as part of their routine care. This device allows for frequent, noninvasive monitoring of PA pressures. Researchers collected PA pressure data from patients twice daily for the entire 13-week study.

The EMBRACE HF (Empagliflozin Impact on Hemodynamics in Patients With Heart Failure) study enrolled patients with established heart failure, a CardioMEMS implant, and New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms at any of eight U.S. centers. Patients averaged about 65 years old, and slightly more than half had class III disease, which denotes marked limitation of physical activity.

Despite the brief treatment period, patients who received empagliflozin showed other evidence of benefit including a trend toward improved quality of life scores, reduced levels of two different forms of brain natriuretic peptide, and significant weight loss, compared with controls, that averaged 2.4 kg.

The mechanism by which empagliflozin and other drugs in its class might lower PA filling pressures is unclear, but Dr. Kosiborod stressed that the consistent level of loop diuretic use during the study seems to rule out a diuretic effect from the SGLT2 inhibitor as having a role. A pulmonary vasculature effect is “much more likely,” perhaps mediated through modified endothelial function and vasodilation, he suggested.

EMBRACE HF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance) along with Eli Lilly. Dr. Kosiborod has received research support and honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has received honoraria from several other companies. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

[email protected]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.

The asymptomatic outpatient

Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.

For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
 

The symptomatic COVID-19 patient

In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.

The critically ill COVID-19 patient

While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.

Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?

Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.

The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).

Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).

Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
 

What’s ahead?

As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
 

Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.

The asymptomatic outpatient

Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.

For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
 

The symptomatic COVID-19 patient

In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.

The critically ill COVID-19 patient

While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.

Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?

Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.

The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).

Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).

Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
 

What’s ahead?

As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
 

Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.

The asymptomatic outpatient

Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.

For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
 

The symptomatic COVID-19 patient

In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.

The critically ill COVID-19 patient

While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.

Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?

Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.

The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).

Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).

Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
 

What’s ahead?

As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
 

Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.

Hospitals that fail to meet the requirements will be barred from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, as announced in late August in a final rule.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.

Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.

Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.

The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.

The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.

The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.

Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.

“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.

Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.

The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.

Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.

Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”

The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.

CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.

Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.