User login
Opioid overdose epidemic now felt in the ICU
SAN FRANCISCO – The opioid overdose crisis in the United States is now plainly evident in intensive care units (ICUs), finds a study of hospitals in 44 states conducted between 2009 and 2015.
During the study period, ICU admissions for opioid overdoses increased by almost half, investigators reported in a session and related press briefing an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. Furthermore, ICU deaths from this cause roughly doubled.
“This means the opioid use epidemic has probably reached a new level of crisis,” said lead investigator Jennifer P. Stevens, MD, an instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School, and an adult intensive care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. “And this means that in spite of everything that we can do in the ICU – keeping them alive on ventilators, doing life support, doing acute dialysis, doing round-the-clock care, round-the-clock board-certified intensivist care – we are still not able to make a difference in that mortality.”
Dr. Stevens added that any ICU admission for overdose from opioids is a preventable admission. “So if we have an increase in mortality of this population, we have a number of patients who have preventable deaths in our ICU,” she said.
Efforts to track this epidemic on a national level are important, she said, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been investigating opioid overdoses in some cities, including Boston, as they would any epidemic.
The factors driving the observed trends could not be determined from the study data, Dr. Stevens said. But state-specific patterns that show, for example, higher baseline rates and greater increases over time in ICU admissions for opioid overdose in Massachusetts and Indiana may be a starting point for investigation.
Certain practices in the ICU may also be inadvertently contributing. “I imagine that a patient who comes in with an opioid overdose can cause harm to themselves in a number of ways, and the things that we try to do to help them might cause harm in other ways as well,” she said. “So in an effort to try to maintain them in a safe, ventilated state, we might give them a ton of sedation that then prolongs their time on the ventilator. That’s sort of a simple example of how the two could intersect to have a multiplicative effect of harm.”
The idea for the study arose because ICU staff anecdotally noticed an uptick in admissions for opioid use disorder. “Not only were we seeing more people coming in, but we were seeing sicker people coming in, and with the associated tragedy that comes with a lot of young people coming in with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Stevens said. “We wanted to see if this was happening nationally... We asked, is this epidemic now reaching the most technologically advanced parts of our health care system?”
The investigators studied hospitals providing data to Vizient (formerly the University HealthSystem Consortium) between 2009 and 2015. The included hospitals – about 200 for each study year – were predominantly urban and university affiliated, but representation of community hospitals increased during the study period.
Ultimately, analyses were based on a total of 28.2 million hospital discharges of patients aged 18 years or older, which included 4.9 million ICU admissions.
Results reported at the meeting showed that 27,325 patients were admitted to the study hospitals’ ICUs with opioid overdose during the study period, as ascertained from billing codes.
Opioid overdose was seen in 45 patients per 10,000 ICU admissions in 2009 but rose to 65 patients per 10,000 ICU admissions in 2015, a 46% increase.
Furthermore, ICU deaths due to opioid overdose rose by 87% during the same time period, and mortality among patients admitted to the unit with overdose rose at a pace of 0.5% per month.
“This is somewhat unusual because a lot of times, when we are admitting more people to our ICUs or examining [a trend] further, mortality actually goes down. This is partly because maybe we are doing more for them and we are taking care of them in an aggressive way. But it’s also because we are admitting less sick people because we are more aware of the issue,” Dr. Stevens said. “And we saw the opposite of this – we saw that the mortality was going up.”
The use of billing data was a specific means but not a sensitive means of identifying opioid overdoses, she noted. Therefore, the observed values are likely underestimates of these outcomes.
Addressing the opioid overdose epidemic will require a multifaceted approach, according to Dr. Stevens, who disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
“Folks are doing very impressive work in the community trying to make sure EMTs and other first responders have access to the tools that they need in those settings,” she said. “But one thing we haven’t approached before is the care that we provide in the ICU, and maybe that’s a space that we need to think more prospectively about.”
SAN FRANCISCO – The opioid overdose crisis in the United States is now plainly evident in intensive care units (ICUs), finds a study of hospitals in 44 states conducted between 2009 and 2015.
During the study period, ICU admissions for opioid overdoses increased by almost half, investigators reported in a session and related press briefing an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. Furthermore, ICU deaths from this cause roughly doubled.
“This means the opioid use epidemic has probably reached a new level of crisis,” said lead investigator Jennifer P. Stevens, MD, an instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School, and an adult intensive care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. “And this means that in spite of everything that we can do in the ICU – keeping them alive on ventilators, doing life support, doing acute dialysis, doing round-the-clock care, round-the-clock board-certified intensivist care – we are still not able to make a difference in that mortality.”
Dr. Stevens added that any ICU admission for overdose from opioids is a preventable admission. “So if we have an increase in mortality of this population, we have a number of patients who have preventable deaths in our ICU,” she said.
Efforts to track this epidemic on a national level are important, she said, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been investigating opioid overdoses in some cities, including Boston, as they would any epidemic.
The factors driving the observed trends could not be determined from the study data, Dr. Stevens said. But state-specific patterns that show, for example, higher baseline rates and greater increases over time in ICU admissions for opioid overdose in Massachusetts and Indiana may be a starting point for investigation.
Certain practices in the ICU may also be inadvertently contributing. “I imagine that a patient who comes in with an opioid overdose can cause harm to themselves in a number of ways, and the things that we try to do to help them might cause harm in other ways as well,” she said. “So in an effort to try to maintain them in a safe, ventilated state, we might give them a ton of sedation that then prolongs their time on the ventilator. That’s sort of a simple example of how the two could intersect to have a multiplicative effect of harm.”
The idea for the study arose because ICU staff anecdotally noticed an uptick in admissions for opioid use disorder. “Not only were we seeing more people coming in, but we were seeing sicker people coming in, and with the associated tragedy that comes with a lot of young people coming in with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Stevens said. “We wanted to see if this was happening nationally... We asked, is this epidemic now reaching the most technologically advanced parts of our health care system?”
The investigators studied hospitals providing data to Vizient (formerly the University HealthSystem Consortium) between 2009 and 2015. The included hospitals – about 200 for each study year – were predominantly urban and university affiliated, but representation of community hospitals increased during the study period.
Ultimately, analyses were based on a total of 28.2 million hospital discharges of patients aged 18 years or older, which included 4.9 million ICU admissions.
Results reported at the meeting showed that 27,325 patients were admitted to the study hospitals’ ICUs with opioid overdose during the study period, as ascertained from billing codes.
Opioid overdose was seen in 45 patients per 10,000 ICU admissions in 2009 but rose to 65 patients per 10,000 ICU admissions in 2015, a 46% increase.
Furthermore, ICU deaths due to opioid overdose rose by 87% during the same time period, and mortality among patients admitted to the unit with overdose rose at a pace of 0.5% per month.
“This is somewhat unusual because a lot of times, when we are admitting more people to our ICUs or examining [a trend] further, mortality actually goes down. This is partly because maybe we are doing more for them and we are taking care of them in an aggressive way. But it’s also because we are admitting less sick people because we are more aware of the issue,” Dr. Stevens said. “And we saw the opposite of this – we saw that the mortality was going up.”
The use of billing data was a specific means but not a sensitive means of identifying opioid overdoses, she noted. Therefore, the observed values are likely underestimates of these outcomes.
Addressing the opioid overdose epidemic will require a multifaceted approach, according to Dr. Stevens, who disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
“Folks are doing very impressive work in the community trying to make sure EMTs and other first responders have access to the tools that they need in those settings,” she said. “But one thing we haven’t approached before is the care that we provide in the ICU, and maybe that’s a space that we need to think more prospectively about.”
SAN FRANCISCO – The opioid overdose crisis in the United States is now plainly evident in intensive care units (ICUs), finds a study of hospitals in 44 states conducted between 2009 and 2015.
During the study period, ICU admissions for opioid overdoses increased by almost half, investigators reported in a session and related press briefing an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. Furthermore, ICU deaths from this cause roughly doubled.
“This means the opioid use epidemic has probably reached a new level of crisis,” said lead investigator Jennifer P. Stevens, MD, an instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School, and an adult intensive care physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. “And this means that in spite of everything that we can do in the ICU – keeping them alive on ventilators, doing life support, doing acute dialysis, doing round-the-clock care, round-the-clock board-certified intensivist care – we are still not able to make a difference in that mortality.”
Dr. Stevens added that any ICU admission for overdose from opioids is a preventable admission. “So if we have an increase in mortality of this population, we have a number of patients who have preventable deaths in our ICU,” she said.
Efforts to track this epidemic on a national level are important, she said, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been investigating opioid overdoses in some cities, including Boston, as they would any epidemic.
The factors driving the observed trends could not be determined from the study data, Dr. Stevens said. But state-specific patterns that show, for example, higher baseline rates and greater increases over time in ICU admissions for opioid overdose in Massachusetts and Indiana may be a starting point for investigation.
Certain practices in the ICU may also be inadvertently contributing. “I imagine that a patient who comes in with an opioid overdose can cause harm to themselves in a number of ways, and the things that we try to do to help them might cause harm in other ways as well,” she said. “So in an effort to try to maintain them in a safe, ventilated state, we might give them a ton of sedation that then prolongs their time on the ventilator. That’s sort of a simple example of how the two could intersect to have a multiplicative effect of harm.”
The idea for the study arose because ICU staff anecdotally noticed an uptick in admissions for opioid use disorder. “Not only were we seeing more people coming in, but we were seeing sicker people coming in, and with the associated tragedy that comes with a lot of young people coming in with opioid use disorder,” Dr. Stevens said. “We wanted to see if this was happening nationally... We asked, is this epidemic now reaching the most technologically advanced parts of our health care system?”
The investigators studied hospitals providing data to Vizient (formerly the University HealthSystem Consortium) between 2009 and 2015. The included hospitals – about 200 for each study year – were predominantly urban and university affiliated, but representation of community hospitals increased during the study period.
Ultimately, analyses were based on a total of 28.2 million hospital discharges of patients aged 18 years or older, which included 4.9 million ICU admissions.
Results reported at the meeting showed that 27,325 patients were admitted to the study hospitals’ ICUs with opioid overdose during the study period, as ascertained from billing codes.
Opioid overdose was seen in 45 patients per 10,000 ICU admissions in 2009 but rose to 65 patients per 10,000 ICU admissions in 2015, a 46% increase.
Furthermore, ICU deaths due to opioid overdose rose by 87% during the same time period, and mortality among patients admitted to the unit with overdose rose at a pace of 0.5% per month.
“This is somewhat unusual because a lot of times, when we are admitting more people to our ICUs or examining [a trend] further, mortality actually goes down. This is partly because maybe we are doing more for them and we are taking care of them in an aggressive way. But it’s also because we are admitting less sick people because we are more aware of the issue,” Dr. Stevens said. “And we saw the opposite of this – we saw that the mortality was going up.”
The use of billing data was a specific means but not a sensitive means of identifying opioid overdoses, she noted. Therefore, the observed values are likely underestimates of these outcomes.
Addressing the opioid overdose epidemic will require a multifaceted approach, according to Dr. Stevens, who disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
“Folks are doing very impressive work in the community trying to make sure EMTs and other first responders have access to the tools that they need in those settings,” she said. “But one thing we haven’t approached before is the care that we provide in the ICU, and maybe that’s a space that we need to think more prospectively about.”
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: Opioid-related ICU admissions and mortality have risen sharply in recent years.
Major finding: ICU admissions for opioid overdose increased by 46%, and ICU deaths from this cause increased by 87%.
Data source: A cohort study of 28.2 million U.S. hospital discharges and 4.9 million ICU admissions between 2009 and 2015.
Disclosures: Dr. Stevens disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
Staffing, work environment drive VAP risk in the ICU
SAN FRANCISCO – The work environment for nurses and the physician staffing model in the intensive care unit influence patients’ likelihood of acquiring ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), based on a cohort study of 25 ICUs.
Overall, each 1-point increase in the score for the nurse work environment – indicating that nurses had a greater sense of playing an important role in patient care – was unexpectedly associated with a roughly sixfold higher rate of VAP among the ICU’s patients, according to data reported in a session and press briefing at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. However, additional analyses showed that the rate of VAP was higher in closed units where a board-certified critical care physician (intensivist) managed and led care rather than an open unit where care is shared.
“We think that the organization of the ICU is actually influencing nursing practice, which is a really novel finding,” commented first author Deena Kelly Costa, PhD, RN, of the University of Michigan School of Nursing in Ann Arbor. “In closed ICUs, when you have a board-certified physician and an ICU team managing and leading care, even if the work environment is better, nurses may not feel as empowered to standardize their care or practice.”
“ICU nurses are the ones who are primarily responsible for VAP preventive practices: they keep the head of the bed higher than 45 degrees, they conduct oral care, they conduct (patient) surveillance. ICU physicians are involved with writing the orders and ventilator setting management. So how these providers work together could theoretically influence the risk for patients developing VAP,” Dr. Costa said.
“We need to be thinking a little bit more critically about not only the care that’s happening at the bedside... but also at an organizational level. How are these providers organized, and can we work together to improve patient outcomes?”
“I’m not suggesting that we get rid of all closed ICUs because I don’t think that’s the solution,” Dr. Costa maintained. “I think from an administrative perspective, we need to be considering what’s the organization of these clinicians and this unit, and [in a context-specific manner], how can we improve it for better patient outcomes? That may be both working on improving the work environment and making the nurses feel more empowered, or it could be potentially considering other staffing models.”
Some data have already linked a more favorable nurse work environment and the presence of a board-certified critical care physician independently with better patient outcomes in the ICU. But studies of their joint impact are lacking.
The investigators performed a secondary, unit-level analysis of nurse survey data collected during 2005 and 2006 in ICUs in southern Michigan.
In all, 462 nurses working in 25 ICUs completed the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index, on which averaged summary scores range between 1 (unfavorable) and 4 (favorable). The scale captures environmental factors such as the adequacy of resources for nurses, support from their managers, and their level of involvement in hospital policy decisions.
The rate of VAP during the same period was assessed using data from more than 1,000 patients from each ICU.
The summary nurse work environment score averaged 2.69 points in the 21 ICUs that had a closed physician staffing model and 2.62 points in the 4 ICUs that had an open physician staffing model. The respective rates of VAP were 7.5% and 2.5%.
In adjusted analysis among all 25 ICUs, each 1-point increase in an ICU’s Practice Environment Scale score was associated with a sharply higher rate of VAP on the unit (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 5.76; P = .02).
However, there was a strong interaction between the score and physician staffing model (P less than .001). In open ICUs, as the score rose, the rate of VAP fell (from about 16% to 5%), whereas in closed ICUs, as the score rose, so did the rate of VAP (from about 3% to 14%).
Dr. Costa disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest. The parent survey was funded by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan.
SAN FRANCISCO – The work environment for nurses and the physician staffing model in the intensive care unit influence patients’ likelihood of acquiring ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), based on a cohort study of 25 ICUs.
Overall, each 1-point increase in the score for the nurse work environment – indicating that nurses had a greater sense of playing an important role in patient care – was unexpectedly associated with a roughly sixfold higher rate of VAP among the ICU’s patients, according to data reported in a session and press briefing at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. However, additional analyses showed that the rate of VAP was higher in closed units where a board-certified critical care physician (intensivist) managed and led care rather than an open unit where care is shared.
“We think that the organization of the ICU is actually influencing nursing practice, which is a really novel finding,” commented first author Deena Kelly Costa, PhD, RN, of the University of Michigan School of Nursing in Ann Arbor. “In closed ICUs, when you have a board-certified physician and an ICU team managing and leading care, even if the work environment is better, nurses may not feel as empowered to standardize their care or practice.”
“ICU nurses are the ones who are primarily responsible for VAP preventive practices: they keep the head of the bed higher than 45 degrees, they conduct oral care, they conduct (patient) surveillance. ICU physicians are involved with writing the orders and ventilator setting management. So how these providers work together could theoretically influence the risk for patients developing VAP,” Dr. Costa said.
“We need to be thinking a little bit more critically about not only the care that’s happening at the bedside... but also at an organizational level. How are these providers organized, and can we work together to improve patient outcomes?”
“I’m not suggesting that we get rid of all closed ICUs because I don’t think that’s the solution,” Dr. Costa maintained. “I think from an administrative perspective, we need to be considering what’s the organization of these clinicians and this unit, and [in a context-specific manner], how can we improve it for better patient outcomes? That may be both working on improving the work environment and making the nurses feel more empowered, or it could be potentially considering other staffing models.”
Some data have already linked a more favorable nurse work environment and the presence of a board-certified critical care physician independently with better patient outcomes in the ICU. But studies of their joint impact are lacking.
The investigators performed a secondary, unit-level analysis of nurse survey data collected during 2005 and 2006 in ICUs in southern Michigan.
In all, 462 nurses working in 25 ICUs completed the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index, on which averaged summary scores range between 1 (unfavorable) and 4 (favorable). The scale captures environmental factors such as the adequacy of resources for nurses, support from their managers, and their level of involvement in hospital policy decisions.
The rate of VAP during the same period was assessed using data from more than 1,000 patients from each ICU.
The summary nurse work environment score averaged 2.69 points in the 21 ICUs that had a closed physician staffing model and 2.62 points in the 4 ICUs that had an open physician staffing model. The respective rates of VAP were 7.5% and 2.5%.
In adjusted analysis among all 25 ICUs, each 1-point increase in an ICU’s Practice Environment Scale score was associated with a sharply higher rate of VAP on the unit (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 5.76; P = .02).
However, there was a strong interaction between the score and physician staffing model (P less than .001). In open ICUs, as the score rose, the rate of VAP fell (from about 16% to 5%), whereas in closed ICUs, as the score rose, so did the rate of VAP (from about 3% to 14%).
Dr. Costa disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest. The parent survey was funded by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan.
SAN FRANCISCO – The work environment for nurses and the physician staffing model in the intensive care unit influence patients’ likelihood of acquiring ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), based on a cohort study of 25 ICUs.
Overall, each 1-point increase in the score for the nurse work environment – indicating that nurses had a greater sense of playing an important role in patient care – was unexpectedly associated with a roughly sixfold higher rate of VAP among the ICU’s patients, according to data reported in a session and press briefing at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. However, additional analyses showed that the rate of VAP was higher in closed units where a board-certified critical care physician (intensivist) managed and led care rather than an open unit where care is shared.
“We think that the organization of the ICU is actually influencing nursing practice, which is a really novel finding,” commented first author Deena Kelly Costa, PhD, RN, of the University of Michigan School of Nursing in Ann Arbor. “In closed ICUs, when you have a board-certified physician and an ICU team managing and leading care, even if the work environment is better, nurses may not feel as empowered to standardize their care or practice.”
“ICU nurses are the ones who are primarily responsible for VAP preventive practices: they keep the head of the bed higher than 45 degrees, they conduct oral care, they conduct (patient) surveillance. ICU physicians are involved with writing the orders and ventilator setting management. So how these providers work together could theoretically influence the risk for patients developing VAP,” Dr. Costa said.
“We need to be thinking a little bit more critically about not only the care that’s happening at the bedside... but also at an organizational level. How are these providers organized, and can we work together to improve patient outcomes?”
“I’m not suggesting that we get rid of all closed ICUs because I don’t think that’s the solution,” Dr. Costa maintained. “I think from an administrative perspective, we need to be considering what’s the organization of these clinicians and this unit, and [in a context-specific manner], how can we improve it for better patient outcomes? That may be both working on improving the work environment and making the nurses feel more empowered, or it could be potentially considering other staffing models.”
Some data have already linked a more favorable nurse work environment and the presence of a board-certified critical care physician independently with better patient outcomes in the ICU. But studies of their joint impact are lacking.
The investigators performed a secondary, unit-level analysis of nurse survey data collected during 2005 and 2006 in ICUs in southern Michigan.
In all, 462 nurses working in 25 ICUs completed the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index, on which averaged summary scores range between 1 (unfavorable) and 4 (favorable). The scale captures environmental factors such as the adequacy of resources for nurses, support from their managers, and their level of involvement in hospital policy decisions.
The rate of VAP during the same period was assessed using data from more than 1,000 patients from each ICU.
The summary nurse work environment score averaged 2.69 points in the 21 ICUs that had a closed physician staffing model and 2.62 points in the 4 ICUs that had an open physician staffing model. The respective rates of VAP were 7.5% and 2.5%.
In adjusted analysis among all 25 ICUs, each 1-point increase in an ICU’s Practice Environment Scale score was associated with a sharply higher rate of VAP on the unit (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 5.76; P = .02).
However, there was a strong interaction between the score and physician staffing model (P less than .001). In open ICUs, as the score rose, the rate of VAP fell (from about 16% to 5%), whereas in closed ICUs, as the score rose, so did the rate of VAP (from about 3% to 14%).
Dr. Costa disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest. The parent survey was funded by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan.
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: The impact of nurse work environment on risk of VAP in the ICU depends on the unit’s physician staffing model.
Major finding: A better nurse work environment was associated with a higher rate of VAP overall (incidence rate ratio, 5.76), but there was an interaction whereby it was positively associated with rate in closed units but negatively so in open units.
Data source: A cohort study of 25 ICUs, 462 nurses, and more than 25,000 patients in southern Michigan between 2005 and 2006.
Disclosures: Dr. Costa disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest. The parent study was funded by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan.
Resident transitions increase inpatients’ risk of death
SAN FRANCISCO – Hospitalized patients who have a change in the medical residents responsible for their care are more likely to die, finds a retrospective cohort study of roughly a quarter million discharges from Veterans Affairs medical centers.
A monthly change in resident care was associated with 9%-20% higher adjusted odds of death during the hospital stay and after discharge, investigators reported in a poster discussion session and press briefing at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. Analyses suggested that such transitions accounted for 718 additional deaths in the hospital alone during the 6-year study period.
“These are very strong findings,” said Dr. Joshua L. Denson, a fellow in the divisions of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.
The study results represent an important initial step in bringing the problem to light, he said. “Handoffs shift to shift have been looked at, but not this end-of-month, more permanent switching, which I think is a much more substantial transition in care.”
The factors driving the increased mortality are unclear, according to Dr. Denson; however, “when you go on to a new service [as a resident] ... you are now responsible for 20 new people all of a sudden that night.” Therefore, these transitions can be a hectic time characterized by reduced communication and inefficient discharges. In addition, the incoming residents lack familiarity with their new patients’ particulars.
“The handoffs are definitely not preventable, so this is something that has to be dealt with,” he maintained. The study’s findings hint at several possible areas for improvement.
None of the 10 residency programs surveyed provided formal education for monthly resident handoffs, focusing instead on handoffs at shift changes, and most programs lacked a standard procedure, with just one requiring that the handoff be done in person. The programs also varied greatly in their staggering of handoffs – separating transitions of interns (first-year residents) and higher-level residents by at least a few days – to minimize impact.
Despite the absence of outcomes data in this area, some hospitals are forging ahead with their own interventions intended to smooth care transitions, Dr. Denson reported. “In at least two hospitals that I’ve worked in, they are implementing what is called a warm handoff,” he explained. “Basically, a resident from the prior rotation comes the next day and rounds with the new team so he can tell them, ‘Oh, this guy looks a little worse today, you may want to watch him,’ or ‘He looks a little better.’ ”
In the study, conducted while Dr. Denson was chief resident at the NYU School of Medicine, he and his colleagues analyzed data from 10 university-affiliated Veterans Affairs hospitals and internal medicine residency programs that provided their residents’ schedules. Analyses were based on a total of 230,701 discharges of adult medical patients between July 2008 and June 2014.
Hospitalized patients were categorized as having a transition in resident care if they were admitted before the date of an end-of-month house staff transition in care and were discharged in the week after it.
In unadjusted analyses, patients who had a transition of care – whether of intern only, resident only, or both – had significantly higher odds of inpatient mortality and of 30-day mortality and 90-day postdischarge mortality, compared with counterparts who did not have the corresponding transition of care.
In adjusted analyses, patients who had an intern transition still had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.14). In addition, patients had persistently elevated odds of 30-day mortality and 90-day postdischarge mortality if they had an intern transition (odds ratios, 1.20 and 1.17, respectively), a resident transition (1.15 and 1.14), or both (1.10 and 1.09).
The findings “suggest possibly a level-of-training effect to these transitions, as it’s the most inexperienced people that have the higher rate of mortality,” noted Dr. Denson, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. “Interns, being the first-years, tend to carry the bulk of the work in most hospitals, which is an interesting paradigm in our organization. And that may be a good explanation for why we are seeing this.”
SAN FRANCISCO – Hospitalized patients who have a change in the medical residents responsible for their care are more likely to die, finds a retrospective cohort study of roughly a quarter million discharges from Veterans Affairs medical centers.
A monthly change in resident care was associated with 9%-20% higher adjusted odds of death during the hospital stay and after discharge, investigators reported in a poster discussion session and press briefing at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. Analyses suggested that such transitions accounted for 718 additional deaths in the hospital alone during the 6-year study period.
“These are very strong findings,” said Dr. Joshua L. Denson, a fellow in the divisions of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.
The study results represent an important initial step in bringing the problem to light, he said. “Handoffs shift to shift have been looked at, but not this end-of-month, more permanent switching, which I think is a much more substantial transition in care.”
The factors driving the increased mortality are unclear, according to Dr. Denson; however, “when you go on to a new service [as a resident] ... you are now responsible for 20 new people all of a sudden that night.” Therefore, these transitions can be a hectic time characterized by reduced communication and inefficient discharges. In addition, the incoming residents lack familiarity with their new patients’ particulars.
“The handoffs are definitely not preventable, so this is something that has to be dealt with,” he maintained. The study’s findings hint at several possible areas for improvement.
None of the 10 residency programs surveyed provided formal education for monthly resident handoffs, focusing instead on handoffs at shift changes, and most programs lacked a standard procedure, with just one requiring that the handoff be done in person. The programs also varied greatly in their staggering of handoffs – separating transitions of interns (first-year residents) and higher-level residents by at least a few days – to minimize impact.
Despite the absence of outcomes data in this area, some hospitals are forging ahead with their own interventions intended to smooth care transitions, Dr. Denson reported. “In at least two hospitals that I’ve worked in, they are implementing what is called a warm handoff,” he explained. “Basically, a resident from the prior rotation comes the next day and rounds with the new team so he can tell them, ‘Oh, this guy looks a little worse today, you may want to watch him,’ or ‘He looks a little better.’ ”
In the study, conducted while Dr. Denson was chief resident at the NYU School of Medicine, he and his colleagues analyzed data from 10 university-affiliated Veterans Affairs hospitals and internal medicine residency programs that provided their residents’ schedules. Analyses were based on a total of 230,701 discharges of adult medical patients between July 2008 and June 2014.
Hospitalized patients were categorized as having a transition in resident care if they were admitted before the date of an end-of-month house staff transition in care and were discharged in the week after it.
In unadjusted analyses, patients who had a transition of care – whether of intern only, resident only, or both – had significantly higher odds of inpatient mortality and of 30-day mortality and 90-day postdischarge mortality, compared with counterparts who did not have the corresponding transition of care.
In adjusted analyses, patients who had an intern transition still had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.14). In addition, patients had persistently elevated odds of 30-day mortality and 90-day postdischarge mortality if they had an intern transition (odds ratios, 1.20 and 1.17, respectively), a resident transition (1.15 and 1.14), or both (1.10 and 1.09).
The findings “suggest possibly a level-of-training effect to these transitions, as it’s the most inexperienced people that have the higher rate of mortality,” noted Dr. Denson, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. “Interns, being the first-years, tend to carry the bulk of the work in most hospitals, which is an interesting paradigm in our organization. And that may be a good explanation for why we are seeing this.”
SAN FRANCISCO – Hospitalized patients who have a change in the medical residents responsible for their care are more likely to die, finds a retrospective cohort study of roughly a quarter million discharges from Veterans Affairs medical centers.
A monthly change in resident care was associated with 9%-20% higher adjusted odds of death during the hospital stay and after discharge, investigators reported in a poster discussion session and press briefing at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. Analyses suggested that such transitions accounted for 718 additional deaths in the hospital alone during the 6-year study period.
“These are very strong findings,” said Dr. Joshua L. Denson, a fellow in the divisions of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.
The study results represent an important initial step in bringing the problem to light, he said. “Handoffs shift to shift have been looked at, but not this end-of-month, more permanent switching, which I think is a much more substantial transition in care.”
The factors driving the increased mortality are unclear, according to Dr. Denson; however, “when you go on to a new service [as a resident] ... you are now responsible for 20 new people all of a sudden that night.” Therefore, these transitions can be a hectic time characterized by reduced communication and inefficient discharges. In addition, the incoming residents lack familiarity with their new patients’ particulars.
“The handoffs are definitely not preventable, so this is something that has to be dealt with,” he maintained. The study’s findings hint at several possible areas for improvement.
None of the 10 residency programs surveyed provided formal education for monthly resident handoffs, focusing instead on handoffs at shift changes, and most programs lacked a standard procedure, with just one requiring that the handoff be done in person. The programs also varied greatly in their staggering of handoffs – separating transitions of interns (first-year residents) and higher-level residents by at least a few days – to minimize impact.
Despite the absence of outcomes data in this area, some hospitals are forging ahead with their own interventions intended to smooth care transitions, Dr. Denson reported. “In at least two hospitals that I’ve worked in, they are implementing what is called a warm handoff,” he explained. “Basically, a resident from the prior rotation comes the next day and rounds with the new team so he can tell them, ‘Oh, this guy looks a little worse today, you may want to watch him,’ or ‘He looks a little better.’ ”
In the study, conducted while Dr. Denson was chief resident at the NYU School of Medicine, he and his colleagues analyzed data from 10 university-affiliated Veterans Affairs hospitals and internal medicine residency programs that provided their residents’ schedules. Analyses were based on a total of 230,701 discharges of adult medical patients between July 2008 and June 2014.
Hospitalized patients were categorized as having a transition in resident care if they were admitted before the date of an end-of-month house staff transition in care and were discharged in the week after it.
In unadjusted analyses, patients who had a transition of care – whether of intern only, resident only, or both – had significantly higher odds of inpatient mortality and of 30-day mortality and 90-day postdischarge mortality, compared with counterparts who did not have the corresponding transition of care.
In adjusted analyses, patients who had an intern transition still had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.14). In addition, patients had persistently elevated odds of 30-day mortality and 90-day postdischarge mortality if they had an intern transition (odds ratios, 1.20 and 1.17, respectively), a resident transition (1.15 and 1.14), or both (1.10 and 1.09).
The findings “suggest possibly a level-of-training effect to these transitions, as it’s the most inexperienced people that have the higher rate of mortality,” noted Dr. Denson, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. “Interns, being the first-years, tend to carry the bulk of the work in most hospitals, which is an interesting paradigm in our organization. And that may be a good explanation for why we are seeing this.”
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: The risk of death for hospitalized patients rises when their care is handed off from one resident to another.
Major finding: Patients who had a resident transition in care during their stay had 9%-20% higher adjusted odds of death.
Data source: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 230,701 discharges of adult medical patients from Veterans Affairs medical centers.
Disclosures: Dr. Denson disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.
Delaying renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients has advantages
SAN FRANCISCO – Delaying initiation of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury appears to be not only safe but beneficial, according to a randomized controlled trial conducted in France.
The trial, known as Artificial Kidney Initiation in Kidney Injury (AKIKI), was conducted among 620 adult patients from 31 intensive care units. The investigators were led by Dr. Stéphane Gaudry of Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris.
The death rate did not differ significantly between groups assigned to an early versus a late initiation strategy, according to results presented at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 May 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603017).
Moreover, nearly half of the patients in the delayed initiation group were able to avoid renal replacement therapy. And they were less likely to develop bloodstream infections and had more rapid onset of diuresis (heralding recovery of renal function) than did peers in whom the therapy was initiated early.
“Our study should not be interpreted as suggesting that a ‘wait and see’ approach is safe for all patients. Indeed, careful surveillance is mandatory when deciding to delay renal-replacement therapy in patients with severe acute kidney injury so that any complications will be detected and renal-replacement therapy initiated without delay,” the investigators concluded. “In our trial, delaying the initiation of therapy allowed many patients to recover from acute kidney injury without embarking on such a treatment course.”
Further, the “findings may not be generalizable, because more than 50% of the patients in our trial received intermittent hemodialysis as the first method of therapy and only 30% of the patients received continuous renal-replacement therapy as the sole method (with no intermittent dialysis at any time).”
The author of an accompanying editorial, Dr. Ravindra L. Mehta of the University of California, San Diego, lists some caveats in interpreting the trial’s findings as support for the delayed initiation strategy.
For example, he notes, the longer time to initiation with the delayed strategy contributed to worsening of metabolic and clinical status in the patients who ultimately did need therapy; the study did not assess the development of chronic kidney disease; and the types of renal replacement therapy selected for patients seem “surprising” as the majority put on this therapy needed vasopressors.
“The findings highlight a need for dynamic risk-stratification tools to identify patients who will not need renal-replacement therapy for management of their acute kidney injury,” Dr. Mehta concluded, noting that ongoing studies should help inform management in this area. “Meanwhile, we should focus on the timely application of renal-replacement therapy while considering individual patient characteristics, process-of-care elements, and logistics to achieve therapeutic goals …”
Patients were eligible for the trial if they had severe acute kidney injury, defined as Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage 3; required mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion, or both; and did not have a potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure.
In those assigned to the early strategy, renal replacement therapy was started immediately after randomization. In those assigned to the delayed strategy, it was started if any of several criteria was met: severe hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, pulmonary edema, blood urea nitrogen level higher than 112 mg/dL, or oliguria for more than 72 hours after randomization. The specific type of renal replacement therapy was left up to each study site.
The median time between randomization and initiation of renal replacement therapy was 2 hours in the early strategy group and 57 hours in the delayed strategy group.
The estimated 60-day mortality rate – the trial’s primary outcome – was 48.5% with early initiation of therapy and 49.7% with delayed initiation, a nonsignificant difference.
Fully 49% of patients in the delayed strategy group never received renal replacement therapy. In addition, patients in this group were half as likely as were peers in the early initiation group to develop a bloodstream infection (5% vs. 10%), and they had more rapid onset of diuresis (P less than .001).
The groups were essentially the same with respect to the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital.
Dr. Gaudry disclosed that he received grant support from the French Ministry of Health during the study, and from XENIOS France outside the research. The trial was supported by a grant from Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National, 2012 (AOM12456), funded by the French Ministry of Health..
SAN FRANCISCO – Delaying initiation of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury appears to be not only safe but beneficial, according to a randomized controlled trial conducted in France.
The trial, known as Artificial Kidney Initiation in Kidney Injury (AKIKI), was conducted among 620 adult patients from 31 intensive care units. The investigators were led by Dr. Stéphane Gaudry of Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris.
The death rate did not differ significantly between groups assigned to an early versus a late initiation strategy, according to results presented at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 May 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603017).
Moreover, nearly half of the patients in the delayed initiation group were able to avoid renal replacement therapy. And they were less likely to develop bloodstream infections and had more rapid onset of diuresis (heralding recovery of renal function) than did peers in whom the therapy was initiated early.
“Our study should not be interpreted as suggesting that a ‘wait and see’ approach is safe for all patients. Indeed, careful surveillance is mandatory when deciding to delay renal-replacement therapy in patients with severe acute kidney injury so that any complications will be detected and renal-replacement therapy initiated without delay,” the investigators concluded. “In our trial, delaying the initiation of therapy allowed many patients to recover from acute kidney injury without embarking on such a treatment course.”
Further, the “findings may not be generalizable, because more than 50% of the patients in our trial received intermittent hemodialysis as the first method of therapy and only 30% of the patients received continuous renal-replacement therapy as the sole method (with no intermittent dialysis at any time).”
The author of an accompanying editorial, Dr. Ravindra L. Mehta of the University of California, San Diego, lists some caveats in interpreting the trial’s findings as support for the delayed initiation strategy.
For example, he notes, the longer time to initiation with the delayed strategy contributed to worsening of metabolic and clinical status in the patients who ultimately did need therapy; the study did not assess the development of chronic kidney disease; and the types of renal replacement therapy selected for patients seem “surprising” as the majority put on this therapy needed vasopressors.
“The findings highlight a need for dynamic risk-stratification tools to identify patients who will not need renal-replacement therapy for management of their acute kidney injury,” Dr. Mehta concluded, noting that ongoing studies should help inform management in this area. “Meanwhile, we should focus on the timely application of renal-replacement therapy while considering individual patient characteristics, process-of-care elements, and logistics to achieve therapeutic goals …”
Patients were eligible for the trial if they had severe acute kidney injury, defined as Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage 3; required mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion, or both; and did not have a potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure.
In those assigned to the early strategy, renal replacement therapy was started immediately after randomization. In those assigned to the delayed strategy, it was started if any of several criteria was met: severe hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, pulmonary edema, blood urea nitrogen level higher than 112 mg/dL, or oliguria for more than 72 hours after randomization. The specific type of renal replacement therapy was left up to each study site.
The median time between randomization and initiation of renal replacement therapy was 2 hours in the early strategy group and 57 hours in the delayed strategy group.
The estimated 60-day mortality rate – the trial’s primary outcome – was 48.5% with early initiation of therapy and 49.7% with delayed initiation, a nonsignificant difference.
Fully 49% of patients in the delayed strategy group never received renal replacement therapy. In addition, patients in this group were half as likely as were peers in the early initiation group to develop a bloodstream infection (5% vs. 10%), and they had more rapid onset of diuresis (P less than .001).
The groups were essentially the same with respect to the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital.
Dr. Gaudry disclosed that he received grant support from the French Ministry of Health during the study, and from XENIOS France outside the research. The trial was supported by a grant from Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National, 2012 (AOM12456), funded by the French Ministry of Health..
SAN FRANCISCO – Delaying initiation of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury appears to be not only safe but beneficial, according to a randomized controlled trial conducted in France.
The trial, known as Artificial Kidney Initiation in Kidney Injury (AKIKI), was conducted among 620 adult patients from 31 intensive care units. The investigators were led by Dr. Stéphane Gaudry of Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris.
The death rate did not differ significantly between groups assigned to an early versus a late initiation strategy, according to results presented at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 May 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603017).
Moreover, nearly half of the patients in the delayed initiation group were able to avoid renal replacement therapy. And they were less likely to develop bloodstream infections and had more rapid onset of diuresis (heralding recovery of renal function) than did peers in whom the therapy was initiated early.
“Our study should not be interpreted as suggesting that a ‘wait and see’ approach is safe for all patients. Indeed, careful surveillance is mandatory when deciding to delay renal-replacement therapy in patients with severe acute kidney injury so that any complications will be detected and renal-replacement therapy initiated without delay,” the investigators concluded. “In our trial, delaying the initiation of therapy allowed many patients to recover from acute kidney injury without embarking on such a treatment course.”
Further, the “findings may not be generalizable, because more than 50% of the patients in our trial received intermittent hemodialysis as the first method of therapy and only 30% of the patients received continuous renal-replacement therapy as the sole method (with no intermittent dialysis at any time).”
The author of an accompanying editorial, Dr. Ravindra L. Mehta of the University of California, San Diego, lists some caveats in interpreting the trial’s findings as support for the delayed initiation strategy.
For example, he notes, the longer time to initiation with the delayed strategy contributed to worsening of metabolic and clinical status in the patients who ultimately did need therapy; the study did not assess the development of chronic kidney disease; and the types of renal replacement therapy selected for patients seem “surprising” as the majority put on this therapy needed vasopressors.
“The findings highlight a need for dynamic risk-stratification tools to identify patients who will not need renal-replacement therapy for management of their acute kidney injury,” Dr. Mehta concluded, noting that ongoing studies should help inform management in this area. “Meanwhile, we should focus on the timely application of renal-replacement therapy while considering individual patient characteristics, process-of-care elements, and logistics to achieve therapeutic goals …”
Patients were eligible for the trial if they had severe acute kidney injury, defined as Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage 3; required mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion, or both; and did not have a potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure.
In those assigned to the early strategy, renal replacement therapy was started immediately after randomization. In those assigned to the delayed strategy, it was started if any of several criteria was met: severe hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, pulmonary edema, blood urea nitrogen level higher than 112 mg/dL, or oliguria for more than 72 hours after randomization. The specific type of renal replacement therapy was left up to each study site.
The median time between randomization and initiation of renal replacement therapy was 2 hours in the early strategy group and 57 hours in the delayed strategy group.
The estimated 60-day mortality rate – the trial’s primary outcome – was 48.5% with early initiation of therapy and 49.7% with delayed initiation, a nonsignificant difference.
Fully 49% of patients in the delayed strategy group never received renal replacement therapy. In addition, patients in this group were half as likely as were peers in the early initiation group to develop a bloodstream infection (5% vs. 10%), and they had more rapid onset of diuresis (P less than .001).
The groups were essentially the same with respect to the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding and the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital.
Dr. Gaudry disclosed that he received grant support from the French Ministry of Health during the study, and from XENIOS France outside the research. The trial was supported by a grant from Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National, 2012 (AOM12456), funded by the French Ministry of Health..
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: Delaying initiation of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with kidney injury appears safe and beneficial.
Major finding: The estimated 60-day mortality rate did not differ significantly between the early and delayed initiation strategies (48.5% vs. 49.7%).
Data source: A randomized controlled trial of 620 critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury.
Disclosures: Dr. Gaudry disclosed that he received grant support from the French Ministry of Health during the study, and from XENIOS France outside the research. The trial was supported by a grant from Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National, 2012 (AOM12456), funded by the French Ministry of Health.
Nighttime extubations carry higher risks of reintubation, death
SAN FRANCISCO – Mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have poorer outcomes if extubated during the night instead of during the day, finds a retrospective cohort study reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
Overall, 20.1% of the nearly 98,000 adult patients studied were extubated during nighttime hours, between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., according to data presented in a session and a related press conference.
Compared with patients extubated during daytime hours, patients extubated during nighttime hours had higher rates of ICU and hospital death, with the absolute difference ranging from 1.0% to 5.1%. Additionally, among those mechanically ventilated for at least 12 hours, nighttime extubation was associated with an absolute 2% increase in the risk of reintubation.
“I think this is the first large-scale study that looks at a practice that, although not as common as we thought it was, is still done about a fifth of the time and even with decreasing rates, is not a rare practice on our units,” commented lead author Dr. Hayley B. Gershengorn of the department of medicine (critical care) and the Saul R. Korey department of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
“As we have increasing staffing [overnight] and maybe an increasing push to move people through our ICUs, we need to probably take some care because although we can’t demonstrate a causal link, it is quite concerning, this consistent finding of increased mortality and reintubation in these folks,” she said.
There are several possible reasons for the observed heightened risks of death and reintubation with nighttime extubation that could not be fully explored in the study, Dr. Gershengorn said.
“We were not able to identify the indication for extubation or discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. So one of the concerns that we have is that it’s probably more common that folks unintentionally extubate themselves or someone unintentionally extubates them overnight, when staffing is less,” she explained. “The other part, which we tried to adjust for but we don’t have perfect data on, is what is the staffing overnight,” including factors such as the ratio of nurses to patients and how many units an intensivist is covering, not just whether he or she is present.
“In terms of the reintubation risk being higher in the [group with longer duration of mechanical ventilation], the question I have is whether or not there is less comfort with somebody looking less well when there is less staff around, and whether or not there may be a quicker trigger to reintubate them if they don’t look so great,” she said.
The majority of intubated patients are unlikely to improve enough physiologically to prompt nighttime extubation rather than waiting until daytime, according to Dr. Gershengorn. But there are at least two groups whom clinicians might want to extubate at night.
One group is those who underwent elective surgery during the day. “They are waiting to come out of anesthesia, and the plan is to discontinue mechanical ventilation at the time that that occurs,” she explained. Another group is those who are agitated on the ventilator, require more sedation than usual, and suddenly awake at night. “These patients are really hard to keep comfortable. I can [sedate them] again and try this problem all over again tomorrow morning, or I can just bite the bullet and pull the tube out,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Project IMPACT critical care medicine database, in which data are prospectively collected for benchmarking purposes. In all, they studied 97,844 mechanically ventilated adults from 165 medical and surgical ICUs across the United States between 2000 and 2009.
Results showed that nighttime extubation was more common among elective surgical patients, those coming from the operating room or a postanesthesia care unit, and those mechanically ventilated for less than 12 hours.
In a finding that Dr. Gershengorn described as surprising, there was a temporal trend by which the adjusted proportion of extubations performed at night actually decreased in more recent years during the study period.
The investigators next looked at outcomes among 10,279 propensity-matched pairs of patients, one member of the pair having been extubated during the night and the other having been extubated during the day.
Among those mechanically ventilated for less than 12 hours, nighttime extubation was associated with higher ICU mortality (5.6% vs. 4.6%; P = .025) and hospital mortality (8.3% vs. 7.0%; P = .014). Findings were inconsistent for length of stay, with nighttime extubation associated with a shorter ICU stay but a longer hospital stay.
Among patients mechanically ventilated for 12 hours or longer, those extubated during the night had a higher rate of reintubation (14.6% vs. 12.4%; P less than .001), as well as higher ICU mortality (11.2% vs. 6.1%; P less than .001) and hospital mortality (16.0% vs. 11.1%; P less than .001). Lengths of stay did not differ by extubation time of day in this group.
In sensitivity analyses, findings were similar when the definition of nighttime extubation was altered to the hours of midnight to 5 a.m. and when analyses were restricted to nonpalliative patients, according to Dr. Gershengorn, who disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SAN FRANCISCO – Mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have poorer outcomes if extubated during the night instead of during the day, finds a retrospective cohort study reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
Overall, 20.1% of the nearly 98,000 adult patients studied were extubated during nighttime hours, between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., according to data presented in a session and a related press conference.
Compared with patients extubated during daytime hours, patients extubated during nighttime hours had higher rates of ICU and hospital death, with the absolute difference ranging from 1.0% to 5.1%. Additionally, among those mechanically ventilated for at least 12 hours, nighttime extubation was associated with an absolute 2% increase in the risk of reintubation.
“I think this is the first large-scale study that looks at a practice that, although not as common as we thought it was, is still done about a fifth of the time and even with decreasing rates, is not a rare practice on our units,” commented lead author Dr. Hayley B. Gershengorn of the department of medicine (critical care) and the Saul R. Korey department of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
“As we have increasing staffing [overnight] and maybe an increasing push to move people through our ICUs, we need to probably take some care because although we can’t demonstrate a causal link, it is quite concerning, this consistent finding of increased mortality and reintubation in these folks,” she said.
There are several possible reasons for the observed heightened risks of death and reintubation with nighttime extubation that could not be fully explored in the study, Dr. Gershengorn said.
“We were not able to identify the indication for extubation or discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. So one of the concerns that we have is that it’s probably more common that folks unintentionally extubate themselves or someone unintentionally extubates them overnight, when staffing is less,” she explained. “The other part, which we tried to adjust for but we don’t have perfect data on, is what is the staffing overnight,” including factors such as the ratio of nurses to patients and how many units an intensivist is covering, not just whether he or she is present.
“In terms of the reintubation risk being higher in the [group with longer duration of mechanical ventilation], the question I have is whether or not there is less comfort with somebody looking less well when there is less staff around, and whether or not there may be a quicker trigger to reintubate them if they don’t look so great,” she said.
The majority of intubated patients are unlikely to improve enough physiologically to prompt nighttime extubation rather than waiting until daytime, according to Dr. Gershengorn. But there are at least two groups whom clinicians might want to extubate at night.
One group is those who underwent elective surgery during the day. “They are waiting to come out of anesthesia, and the plan is to discontinue mechanical ventilation at the time that that occurs,” she explained. Another group is those who are agitated on the ventilator, require more sedation than usual, and suddenly awake at night. “These patients are really hard to keep comfortable. I can [sedate them] again and try this problem all over again tomorrow morning, or I can just bite the bullet and pull the tube out,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Project IMPACT critical care medicine database, in which data are prospectively collected for benchmarking purposes. In all, they studied 97,844 mechanically ventilated adults from 165 medical and surgical ICUs across the United States between 2000 and 2009.
Results showed that nighttime extubation was more common among elective surgical patients, those coming from the operating room or a postanesthesia care unit, and those mechanically ventilated for less than 12 hours.
In a finding that Dr. Gershengorn described as surprising, there was a temporal trend by which the adjusted proportion of extubations performed at night actually decreased in more recent years during the study period.
The investigators next looked at outcomes among 10,279 propensity-matched pairs of patients, one member of the pair having been extubated during the night and the other having been extubated during the day.
Among those mechanically ventilated for less than 12 hours, nighttime extubation was associated with higher ICU mortality (5.6% vs. 4.6%; P = .025) and hospital mortality (8.3% vs. 7.0%; P = .014). Findings were inconsistent for length of stay, with nighttime extubation associated with a shorter ICU stay but a longer hospital stay.
Among patients mechanically ventilated for 12 hours or longer, those extubated during the night had a higher rate of reintubation (14.6% vs. 12.4%; P less than .001), as well as higher ICU mortality (11.2% vs. 6.1%; P less than .001) and hospital mortality (16.0% vs. 11.1%; P less than .001). Lengths of stay did not differ by extubation time of day in this group.
In sensitivity analyses, findings were similar when the definition of nighttime extubation was altered to the hours of midnight to 5 a.m. and when analyses were restricted to nonpalliative patients, according to Dr. Gershengorn, who disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SAN FRANCISCO – Mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have poorer outcomes if extubated during the night instead of during the day, finds a retrospective cohort study reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
Overall, 20.1% of the nearly 98,000 adult patients studied were extubated during nighttime hours, between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., according to data presented in a session and a related press conference.
Compared with patients extubated during daytime hours, patients extubated during nighttime hours had higher rates of ICU and hospital death, with the absolute difference ranging from 1.0% to 5.1%. Additionally, among those mechanically ventilated for at least 12 hours, nighttime extubation was associated with an absolute 2% increase in the risk of reintubation.
“I think this is the first large-scale study that looks at a practice that, although not as common as we thought it was, is still done about a fifth of the time and even with decreasing rates, is not a rare practice on our units,” commented lead author Dr. Hayley B. Gershengorn of the department of medicine (critical care) and the Saul R. Korey department of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York.
“As we have increasing staffing [overnight] and maybe an increasing push to move people through our ICUs, we need to probably take some care because although we can’t demonstrate a causal link, it is quite concerning, this consistent finding of increased mortality and reintubation in these folks,” she said.
There are several possible reasons for the observed heightened risks of death and reintubation with nighttime extubation that could not be fully explored in the study, Dr. Gershengorn said.
“We were not able to identify the indication for extubation or discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. So one of the concerns that we have is that it’s probably more common that folks unintentionally extubate themselves or someone unintentionally extubates them overnight, when staffing is less,” she explained. “The other part, which we tried to adjust for but we don’t have perfect data on, is what is the staffing overnight,” including factors such as the ratio of nurses to patients and how many units an intensivist is covering, not just whether he or she is present.
“In terms of the reintubation risk being higher in the [group with longer duration of mechanical ventilation], the question I have is whether or not there is less comfort with somebody looking less well when there is less staff around, and whether or not there may be a quicker trigger to reintubate them if they don’t look so great,” she said.
The majority of intubated patients are unlikely to improve enough physiologically to prompt nighttime extubation rather than waiting until daytime, according to Dr. Gershengorn. But there are at least two groups whom clinicians might want to extubate at night.
One group is those who underwent elective surgery during the day. “They are waiting to come out of anesthesia, and the plan is to discontinue mechanical ventilation at the time that that occurs,” she explained. Another group is those who are agitated on the ventilator, require more sedation than usual, and suddenly awake at night. “These patients are really hard to keep comfortable. I can [sedate them] again and try this problem all over again tomorrow morning, or I can just bite the bullet and pull the tube out,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Project IMPACT critical care medicine database, in which data are prospectively collected for benchmarking purposes. In all, they studied 97,844 mechanically ventilated adults from 165 medical and surgical ICUs across the United States between 2000 and 2009.
Results showed that nighttime extubation was more common among elective surgical patients, those coming from the operating room or a postanesthesia care unit, and those mechanically ventilated for less than 12 hours.
In a finding that Dr. Gershengorn described as surprising, there was a temporal trend by which the adjusted proportion of extubations performed at night actually decreased in more recent years during the study period.
The investigators next looked at outcomes among 10,279 propensity-matched pairs of patients, one member of the pair having been extubated during the night and the other having been extubated during the day.
Among those mechanically ventilated for less than 12 hours, nighttime extubation was associated with higher ICU mortality (5.6% vs. 4.6%; P = .025) and hospital mortality (8.3% vs. 7.0%; P = .014). Findings were inconsistent for length of stay, with nighttime extubation associated with a shorter ICU stay but a longer hospital stay.
Among patients mechanically ventilated for 12 hours or longer, those extubated during the night had a higher rate of reintubation (14.6% vs. 12.4%; P less than .001), as well as higher ICU mortality (11.2% vs. 6.1%; P less than .001) and hospital mortality (16.0% vs. 11.1%; P less than .001). Lengths of stay did not differ by extubation time of day in this group.
In sensitivity analyses, findings were similar when the definition of nighttime extubation was altered to the hours of midnight to 5 a.m. and when analyses were restricted to nonpalliative patients, according to Dr. Gershengorn, who disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: Mechanically ventilated ICU patients have poorer outcomes if they are extubated during the night instead of during the day.
Major finding: Compared with patients extubated during daytime hours, patients extubated during nighttime hours had higher rates of ICU and hospital death, with the absolute difference ranging from 1.0% to 5.1%.
Data source: A retrospective cohort study of 97,844 mechanically ventilated adult patients from 165 ICUs in the United States.
Disclosures: Dr. Gershengorn disclosed that she had no relevant conflicts of interest.
Survey of pulmonologists regarding inhalational devices yields mixed results
SAN FRANCISCO – Pulmonologists generally have a high level of knowledge about inhalational devices used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but there are areas where more education would be welcomed, according to a survey conducted by the American Thoracic Society and sponsored by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals.
More than half of respondents believed that they were at least very knowledgeable about medications used to treat COPD and the devices as a whole, Dr. Sidney S. Braman reported in a press conference and poster session at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. But only a third knew what hand-held small-volume nebulizers were intended for or how to use them, and respondents varied in their views regarding which patients are candidates for use.
The survey assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the management of COPD, including the use of metered-dose inhalers, dry powder inhalers, and handheld small-volume nebulizers. In all, 205 U.S. pulmonologists and pulmonology fellows participated.
Overall, 79% and 54% of respondents indicated that they were extremely or very knowledgeable about medications used to manage COPD and about the inhalational devices, respectively, lead author Dr. Braman, a professor of medicine; pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, reported. Additionally, 68% had this level of knowledge when it came to preventing exacerbations, and 43% and 22% did when it came to teaching patients how to use the devices and how to clean and store them, respectively. Large proportions – 72%-89%, depending on the topic – were somewhat or very interested in receiving additional education.
Only a minority of respondents reported being extremely or very knowledgeable specifically about handheld small-volume nebulizers. Just 34% knew well their intended use, 33% when to use them, 32% how to use them, 31% who should use them, and 20% how to clean and maintain them.
As expected, respondents were increasing likely to say that they typically recommended a nebulized medication as the severity of the disease increased. Some 52% recommended it early in treatment for patients with the most severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council scale grade 4), and 69% did so early in treatment after acute exacerbations.
Similarly, respondents were increasing likely to say that they found handheld small-volume nebulizers more effective than the inhalers as the severity of disease rose. Overall, 63% endorsed this viewpoint for patients with grade 4 disease, and 70% did so for patients who had experienced acute exacerbations.
“The results I think were somewhat expected and somewhat not expected,” commented Dr. Braman. “I think this all tells us that we really need better education. And for us at the ATS, this is so important, because what it’s saying is we need to get out there, we need to have better studies in terms of what are the appropriate uses, and then turn around and give our members and others around the world education about the small-volume nebulizer use.”
While the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline “gives clinicians a wonderful road map on how to approach COPD,” by explaining what medications to deliver as the disease progresses, the guideline is lacking information about the devices, particularly the small-volume nebulizer.
During an interview, press conference moderator Dr. David Mannino, professor and chair of preventive medicine & environmental health at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health in Lexington, said he was not surprised by the survey’s results.
“Years ago and certainly when I was going through training as a resident, there was this body of literature being developed showing that respiratory therapists working with patients in hospitals with the use of metered-dose inhalers and spacers got results that equaled that of the nebulizer, which I frankly never bought because although the data may have supported that, people don’t take respiratory therapists home with them. … I know my sick patients cling to their nebulized therapies very stringently.
“Ultimately, we have patients who very much would benefit by having a truly very small nebulizer that they could take with them because the problem with inhaled therapies in COPD – your metered-dose inhalers, your dry powder inhalers, and all these other devices – is that you basically get one opportunity in somewhere between about half a second and 2 seconds to get your dose of medication in,” Dr. Mannino said. “Even when you throw a spacer on, it does not pass what I would call the ‘my mom test,’” meaning that use would be difficult for an older adult with suboptimal hand-eye-breathing coordination and possibly comorbidities such as arthritis and cognitive impairment.
In contrast, nebulizers deliver medication during a full 2-3 minutes of tidal breathing. “That’s why nebulizers work better for patients, because they have more of an opportunity to get the medication,” Dr. Mannino maintained. “Once we get to the point where we actually can figure out how to get nebulized therapy in a truly easily transportable form – and I think there is some technology that is being developed – ultimately, what I’d love to see is a nebulizer that is truly the size of a little metered-dose inhaler. That will then be the game changer, I think.”
The online survey was designed by a steering committee of ATS clinicians and scientists and was conducted by Harris Poll during January 2016. Pulmonologists and fellows with an interest in COPD from the ATS membership roster who had attended recent conferences were invited to participate.
Dr. Braman disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was sponsored by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and the survey data were provided by Harris Poll.
SAN FRANCISCO – Pulmonologists generally have a high level of knowledge about inhalational devices used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but there are areas where more education would be welcomed, according to a survey conducted by the American Thoracic Society and sponsored by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals.
More than half of respondents believed that they were at least very knowledgeable about medications used to treat COPD and the devices as a whole, Dr. Sidney S. Braman reported in a press conference and poster session at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. But only a third knew what hand-held small-volume nebulizers were intended for or how to use them, and respondents varied in their views regarding which patients are candidates for use.
The survey assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the management of COPD, including the use of metered-dose inhalers, dry powder inhalers, and handheld small-volume nebulizers. In all, 205 U.S. pulmonologists and pulmonology fellows participated.
Overall, 79% and 54% of respondents indicated that they were extremely or very knowledgeable about medications used to manage COPD and about the inhalational devices, respectively, lead author Dr. Braman, a professor of medicine; pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, reported. Additionally, 68% had this level of knowledge when it came to preventing exacerbations, and 43% and 22% did when it came to teaching patients how to use the devices and how to clean and store them, respectively. Large proportions – 72%-89%, depending on the topic – were somewhat or very interested in receiving additional education.
Only a minority of respondents reported being extremely or very knowledgeable specifically about handheld small-volume nebulizers. Just 34% knew well their intended use, 33% when to use them, 32% how to use them, 31% who should use them, and 20% how to clean and maintain them.
As expected, respondents were increasing likely to say that they typically recommended a nebulized medication as the severity of the disease increased. Some 52% recommended it early in treatment for patients with the most severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council scale grade 4), and 69% did so early in treatment after acute exacerbations.
Similarly, respondents were increasing likely to say that they found handheld small-volume nebulizers more effective than the inhalers as the severity of disease rose. Overall, 63% endorsed this viewpoint for patients with grade 4 disease, and 70% did so for patients who had experienced acute exacerbations.
“The results I think were somewhat expected and somewhat not expected,” commented Dr. Braman. “I think this all tells us that we really need better education. And for us at the ATS, this is so important, because what it’s saying is we need to get out there, we need to have better studies in terms of what are the appropriate uses, and then turn around and give our members and others around the world education about the small-volume nebulizer use.”
While the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline “gives clinicians a wonderful road map on how to approach COPD,” by explaining what medications to deliver as the disease progresses, the guideline is lacking information about the devices, particularly the small-volume nebulizer.
During an interview, press conference moderator Dr. David Mannino, professor and chair of preventive medicine & environmental health at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health in Lexington, said he was not surprised by the survey’s results.
“Years ago and certainly when I was going through training as a resident, there was this body of literature being developed showing that respiratory therapists working with patients in hospitals with the use of metered-dose inhalers and spacers got results that equaled that of the nebulizer, which I frankly never bought because although the data may have supported that, people don’t take respiratory therapists home with them. … I know my sick patients cling to their nebulized therapies very stringently.
“Ultimately, we have patients who very much would benefit by having a truly very small nebulizer that they could take with them because the problem with inhaled therapies in COPD – your metered-dose inhalers, your dry powder inhalers, and all these other devices – is that you basically get one opportunity in somewhere between about half a second and 2 seconds to get your dose of medication in,” Dr. Mannino said. “Even when you throw a spacer on, it does not pass what I would call the ‘my mom test,’” meaning that use would be difficult for an older adult with suboptimal hand-eye-breathing coordination and possibly comorbidities such as arthritis and cognitive impairment.
In contrast, nebulizers deliver medication during a full 2-3 minutes of tidal breathing. “That’s why nebulizers work better for patients, because they have more of an opportunity to get the medication,” Dr. Mannino maintained. “Once we get to the point where we actually can figure out how to get nebulized therapy in a truly easily transportable form – and I think there is some technology that is being developed – ultimately, what I’d love to see is a nebulizer that is truly the size of a little metered-dose inhaler. That will then be the game changer, I think.”
The online survey was designed by a steering committee of ATS clinicians and scientists and was conducted by Harris Poll during January 2016. Pulmonologists and fellows with an interest in COPD from the ATS membership roster who had attended recent conferences were invited to participate.
Dr. Braman disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was sponsored by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and the survey data were provided by Harris Poll.
SAN FRANCISCO – Pulmonologists generally have a high level of knowledge about inhalational devices used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but there are areas where more education would be welcomed, according to a survey conducted by the American Thoracic Society and sponsored by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals.
More than half of respondents believed that they were at least very knowledgeable about medications used to treat COPD and the devices as a whole, Dr. Sidney S. Braman reported in a press conference and poster session at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society. But only a third knew what hand-held small-volume nebulizers were intended for or how to use them, and respondents varied in their views regarding which patients are candidates for use.
The survey assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the management of COPD, including the use of metered-dose inhalers, dry powder inhalers, and handheld small-volume nebulizers. In all, 205 U.S. pulmonologists and pulmonology fellows participated.
Overall, 79% and 54% of respondents indicated that they were extremely or very knowledgeable about medications used to manage COPD and about the inhalational devices, respectively, lead author Dr. Braman, a professor of medicine; pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, reported. Additionally, 68% had this level of knowledge when it came to preventing exacerbations, and 43% and 22% did when it came to teaching patients how to use the devices and how to clean and store them, respectively. Large proportions – 72%-89%, depending on the topic – were somewhat or very interested in receiving additional education.
Only a minority of respondents reported being extremely or very knowledgeable specifically about handheld small-volume nebulizers. Just 34% knew well their intended use, 33% when to use them, 32% how to use them, 31% who should use them, and 20% how to clean and maintain them.
As expected, respondents were increasing likely to say that they typically recommended a nebulized medication as the severity of the disease increased. Some 52% recommended it early in treatment for patients with the most severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council scale grade 4), and 69% did so early in treatment after acute exacerbations.
Similarly, respondents were increasing likely to say that they found handheld small-volume nebulizers more effective than the inhalers as the severity of disease rose. Overall, 63% endorsed this viewpoint for patients with grade 4 disease, and 70% did so for patients who had experienced acute exacerbations.
“The results I think were somewhat expected and somewhat not expected,” commented Dr. Braman. “I think this all tells us that we really need better education. And for us at the ATS, this is so important, because what it’s saying is we need to get out there, we need to have better studies in terms of what are the appropriate uses, and then turn around and give our members and others around the world education about the small-volume nebulizer use.”
While the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline “gives clinicians a wonderful road map on how to approach COPD,” by explaining what medications to deliver as the disease progresses, the guideline is lacking information about the devices, particularly the small-volume nebulizer.
During an interview, press conference moderator Dr. David Mannino, professor and chair of preventive medicine & environmental health at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health in Lexington, said he was not surprised by the survey’s results.
“Years ago and certainly when I was going through training as a resident, there was this body of literature being developed showing that respiratory therapists working with patients in hospitals with the use of metered-dose inhalers and spacers got results that equaled that of the nebulizer, which I frankly never bought because although the data may have supported that, people don’t take respiratory therapists home with them. … I know my sick patients cling to their nebulized therapies very stringently.
“Ultimately, we have patients who very much would benefit by having a truly very small nebulizer that they could take with them because the problem with inhaled therapies in COPD – your metered-dose inhalers, your dry powder inhalers, and all these other devices – is that you basically get one opportunity in somewhere between about half a second and 2 seconds to get your dose of medication in,” Dr. Mannino said. “Even when you throw a spacer on, it does not pass what I would call the ‘my mom test,’” meaning that use would be difficult for an older adult with suboptimal hand-eye-breathing coordination and possibly comorbidities such as arthritis and cognitive impairment.
In contrast, nebulizers deliver medication during a full 2-3 minutes of tidal breathing. “That’s why nebulizers work better for patients, because they have more of an opportunity to get the medication,” Dr. Mannino maintained. “Once we get to the point where we actually can figure out how to get nebulized therapy in a truly easily transportable form – and I think there is some technology that is being developed – ultimately, what I’d love to see is a nebulizer that is truly the size of a little metered-dose inhaler. That will then be the game changer, I think.”
The online survey was designed by a steering committee of ATS clinicians and scientists and was conducted by Harris Poll during January 2016. Pulmonologists and fellows with an interest in COPD from the ATS membership roster who had attended recent conferences were invited to participate.
Dr. Braman disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was sponsored by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and the survey data were provided by Harris Poll.
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: Overall, respondents were knowledgeable about inhalational devices used to treat COPD, but some gaps were evident.
Major finding: More than half of respondents were at least very knowledgeable about inhalational devices as a whole, but only a third knew what hand-held small-volume nebulizers were intended for and when and how to use them.
Data source: A cross-sectional survey of 205 U.S. pulmonologists and pulmonology fellows conducted in January 2016.
Disclosures: Dr. Braman disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was sponsored by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and the survey data were provided by Harris Poll.
RENEW: Endobronchial coils improve exercise tolerance in severe emphysema
SAN FRANCISCO – Compressing damaged lung tissue with endobronchial coils improves exercise tolerance in patients with severe emphysema, albeit with the tradeoff of more adverse events, concludes the phase 3 RENEW trial.
After a year of treatment, the 6-minute walk distance had improved in patients given coils, whereas it had worsened in patients managed with usual care, with a difference of nearly 15 meters between groups, investigators reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society and simultaneously published (JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.6261. Published online May 15, 2016).
However, the median gain with coils fell short of the study’s predefined minimal clinically important difference of 25 meters. Additionally, major complications, mainly lower respiratory tract infections, were more common with the coils, although they resolved with time.
“Participants in the RENEW trial had advanced disease. Seventy-seven percent had homogeneous emphysema. This is a group that has very few therapeutic options,” commented lead investigator Dr. Frank C. Sciurba, director of both the Emphysema Research Center and the Pulmonary Function Exercise Physiology Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh.
“The response rates of endobronchial coils to improve quality of life and exercise tolerance in these severely symptomatic patients balanced against peri-procedural adverse events in this population provides an evidence-based choice for symptomatic patients and treating physicians when there are few other options in these patients,” he said.
RENEW (Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment in Patients With Emphysema) was conducted among 315 patients from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France who had emphysema with severe air trapping.
“This was a very inclusive study. In contrast to the surgical and valvular studies, we randomized nearly half of those screened because we allowed patients with homogeneous disease and of course didn’t select based on fissure integrity, which is a selection criterion for other studies,” Dr. Sciurba commented.
The patients received either guideline-based usual care alone (including pulmonary rehabilitation and bronchodilators) or with the addition of bilateral, bronchoscopically placed coils (RePneu Lung Volume Reduction Coil System, currently investigational in the United States).
At 12 months, the median 6-minute walk distance had improved by 10.3 meters with coil treatment but worsened by 7.6 meters with usual care (P = .02). The proportion of patients attaining an improvement of at least 25 meters was higher in the coil group (40.0% vs. 26.9%; P = .01).
In exploratory analyses, patients having more nonpulmonary comorbidities at baseline derived lesser benefit in walk distance from coil treatment, Dr. Sciurba noted.
The coils also netted greater improvement in the median change in forced exploratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (difference between groups, 7.0%; P < .001) and in scores on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (difference between groups, −8.9 points).
At the same time, patients in the coil group had higher rates of major complications such as pneumonia requiring hospitalization and other potentially life-threatening or fatal events (34.8% vs. 19.1%, P = .002) and of other serious adverse events such as pneumonia (20% vs. 4.5%) and pneumothorax (9.7% vs. 0.6%).
“All of these adverse events returned to baseline at 9 to 12 months,” Dr. Sciurba reported. Additionally, there was no significant difference between groups in mortality rate.
Of note, 35% of the 40 cases of coil-associated opacities initially thought to be pneumonia were in fact determined to likely be a noninfectious inflammatory reaction to the coils. “These adjudicated noninfectious coil-associated opacities were associated with a better response,” he noted.
Finally, in stratified analyses, patients with greater air trapping at baseline had better-than-average improvements in outcomes with the coils, regardless of whether they had homogeneous or heterogeneous disease. Among patients with lesser air trapping, those with homogeneous disease derived much less benefit than the average from coils, while the group with heterogeneous disease was too small to draw any conclusions.
Dr. Sciurba disclosed that he receives institutional support from PneumRx and Pulmonx. The study was sponsored by PneumRx.
Dr. Vera De Palo, FCCP, comments: When patients are functionally limited, as physicians we like to be able to offer options. The results of this trial indicate that another option may exist to improve functionality. As with all treatment decisions, matching the patient to the best therapeutic option and weighing the risks and benefits of the choice will be important.
Dr. Vera De Palo, FCCP, comments: When patients are functionally limited, as physicians we like to be able to offer options. The results of this trial indicate that another option may exist to improve functionality. As with all treatment decisions, matching the patient to the best therapeutic option and weighing the risks and benefits of the choice will be important.
Dr. Vera De Palo, FCCP, comments: When patients are functionally limited, as physicians we like to be able to offer options. The results of this trial indicate that another option may exist to improve functionality. As with all treatment decisions, matching the patient to the best therapeutic option and weighing the risks and benefits of the choice will be important.
SAN FRANCISCO – Compressing damaged lung tissue with endobronchial coils improves exercise tolerance in patients with severe emphysema, albeit with the tradeoff of more adverse events, concludes the phase 3 RENEW trial.
After a year of treatment, the 6-minute walk distance had improved in patients given coils, whereas it had worsened in patients managed with usual care, with a difference of nearly 15 meters between groups, investigators reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society and simultaneously published (JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.6261. Published online May 15, 2016).
However, the median gain with coils fell short of the study’s predefined minimal clinically important difference of 25 meters. Additionally, major complications, mainly lower respiratory tract infections, were more common with the coils, although they resolved with time.
“Participants in the RENEW trial had advanced disease. Seventy-seven percent had homogeneous emphysema. This is a group that has very few therapeutic options,” commented lead investigator Dr. Frank C. Sciurba, director of both the Emphysema Research Center and the Pulmonary Function Exercise Physiology Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh.
“The response rates of endobronchial coils to improve quality of life and exercise tolerance in these severely symptomatic patients balanced against peri-procedural adverse events in this population provides an evidence-based choice for symptomatic patients and treating physicians when there are few other options in these patients,” he said.
RENEW (Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment in Patients With Emphysema) was conducted among 315 patients from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France who had emphysema with severe air trapping.
“This was a very inclusive study. In contrast to the surgical and valvular studies, we randomized nearly half of those screened because we allowed patients with homogeneous disease and of course didn’t select based on fissure integrity, which is a selection criterion for other studies,” Dr. Sciurba commented.
The patients received either guideline-based usual care alone (including pulmonary rehabilitation and bronchodilators) or with the addition of bilateral, bronchoscopically placed coils (RePneu Lung Volume Reduction Coil System, currently investigational in the United States).
At 12 months, the median 6-minute walk distance had improved by 10.3 meters with coil treatment but worsened by 7.6 meters with usual care (P = .02). The proportion of patients attaining an improvement of at least 25 meters was higher in the coil group (40.0% vs. 26.9%; P = .01).
In exploratory analyses, patients having more nonpulmonary comorbidities at baseline derived lesser benefit in walk distance from coil treatment, Dr. Sciurba noted.
The coils also netted greater improvement in the median change in forced exploratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (difference between groups, 7.0%; P < .001) and in scores on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (difference between groups, −8.9 points).
At the same time, patients in the coil group had higher rates of major complications such as pneumonia requiring hospitalization and other potentially life-threatening or fatal events (34.8% vs. 19.1%, P = .002) and of other serious adverse events such as pneumonia (20% vs. 4.5%) and pneumothorax (9.7% vs. 0.6%).
“All of these adverse events returned to baseline at 9 to 12 months,” Dr. Sciurba reported. Additionally, there was no significant difference between groups in mortality rate.
Of note, 35% of the 40 cases of coil-associated opacities initially thought to be pneumonia were in fact determined to likely be a noninfectious inflammatory reaction to the coils. “These adjudicated noninfectious coil-associated opacities were associated with a better response,” he noted.
Finally, in stratified analyses, patients with greater air trapping at baseline had better-than-average improvements in outcomes with the coils, regardless of whether they had homogeneous or heterogeneous disease. Among patients with lesser air trapping, those with homogeneous disease derived much less benefit than the average from coils, while the group with heterogeneous disease was too small to draw any conclusions.
Dr. Sciurba disclosed that he receives institutional support from PneumRx and Pulmonx. The study was sponsored by PneumRx.
SAN FRANCISCO – Compressing damaged lung tissue with endobronchial coils improves exercise tolerance in patients with severe emphysema, albeit with the tradeoff of more adverse events, concludes the phase 3 RENEW trial.
After a year of treatment, the 6-minute walk distance had improved in patients given coils, whereas it had worsened in patients managed with usual care, with a difference of nearly 15 meters between groups, investigators reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society and simultaneously published (JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.6261. Published online May 15, 2016).
However, the median gain with coils fell short of the study’s predefined minimal clinically important difference of 25 meters. Additionally, major complications, mainly lower respiratory tract infections, were more common with the coils, although they resolved with time.
“Participants in the RENEW trial had advanced disease. Seventy-seven percent had homogeneous emphysema. This is a group that has very few therapeutic options,” commented lead investigator Dr. Frank C. Sciurba, director of both the Emphysema Research Center and the Pulmonary Function Exercise Physiology Laboratory at the University of Pittsburgh.
“The response rates of endobronchial coils to improve quality of life and exercise tolerance in these severely symptomatic patients balanced against peri-procedural adverse events in this population provides an evidence-based choice for symptomatic patients and treating physicians when there are few other options in these patients,” he said.
RENEW (Lung Volume Reduction Coil Treatment in Patients With Emphysema) was conducted among 315 patients from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, and France who had emphysema with severe air trapping.
“This was a very inclusive study. In contrast to the surgical and valvular studies, we randomized nearly half of those screened because we allowed patients with homogeneous disease and of course didn’t select based on fissure integrity, which is a selection criterion for other studies,” Dr. Sciurba commented.
The patients received either guideline-based usual care alone (including pulmonary rehabilitation and bronchodilators) or with the addition of bilateral, bronchoscopically placed coils (RePneu Lung Volume Reduction Coil System, currently investigational in the United States).
At 12 months, the median 6-minute walk distance had improved by 10.3 meters with coil treatment but worsened by 7.6 meters with usual care (P = .02). The proportion of patients attaining an improvement of at least 25 meters was higher in the coil group (40.0% vs. 26.9%; P = .01).
In exploratory analyses, patients having more nonpulmonary comorbidities at baseline derived lesser benefit in walk distance from coil treatment, Dr. Sciurba noted.
The coils also netted greater improvement in the median change in forced exploratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (difference between groups, 7.0%; P < .001) and in scores on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (difference between groups, −8.9 points).
At the same time, patients in the coil group had higher rates of major complications such as pneumonia requiring hospitalization and other potentially life-threatening or fatal events (34.8% vs. 19.1%, P = .002) and of other serious adverse events such as pneumonia (20% vs. 4.5%) and pneumothorax (9.7% vs. 0.6%).
“All of these adverse events returned to baseline at 9 to 12 months,” Dr. Sciurba reported. Additionally, there was no significant difference between groups in mortality rate.
Of note, 35% of the 40 cases of coil-associated opacities initially thought to be pneumonia were in fact determined to likely be a noninfectious inflammatory reaction to the coils. “These adjudicated noninfectious coil-associated opacities were associated with a better response,” he noted.
Finally, in stratified analyses, patients with greater air trapping at baseline had better-than-average improvements in outcomes with the coils, regardless of whether they had homogeneous or heterogeneous disease. Among patients with lesser air trapping, those with homogeneous disease derived much less benefit than the average from coils, while the group with heterogeneous disease was too small to draw any conclusions.
Dr. Sciurba disclosed that he receives institutional support from PneumRx and Pulmonx. The study was sponsored by PneumRx.
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: Endobronchial coils modestly improve exercise tolerance in severe emphysema with the tradeoff of more adverse events.
Major finding: After a year, the median 6-minute walk distance had improved by 10.3 meters with coil treatment but worsened by 7.6 meters with usual care (P = .02).
Data source: A randomized phase 3 trial among 315 patients with emphysema and severe air trapping.
Disclosures: Dr. Sciurba disclosed that he receives institutional support from PneumRx and Pulmonx. The study was sponsored by PneumRx.
Dual bronchodilator combination shines in patients with high-risk COPD
SAN FRANCISCO – It may be time to revise guidelines when it comes to initial treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated by exacerbations, based on data from a phase III trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
The trial, known as FLAME, undertook a head-to-head comparison of two inhaled drug combinations among more than 3,300 patients from 43 countries. Patients were randomized to once-daily indacaterol (a long-acting beta-agonist, or LABA, bronchodilator) and glycopyrronium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, or LAMA, bronchodilator), or to twice-daily salmeterol, also a LABA bronchodilator, and the inhaled glucocorticoid fluticasone.
After a year, the annual rate of exacerbations was 11% lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone, according to results reported in a press conference and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 May 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1516385). The difference not only met the trial’s primary endpoint of noninferiority, but also established superiority.
The dual bronchodilator combination was also superior to salmeterol-fluticasone when it came to other outcomes, such as respiratory-related health status and rescue medication use, and it had a good safety profile.
“I think we can say that... a dual bronchodilator is the first-choice combination that can be used in patients with COPD,” commented lead author Dr. Jadwiga A. Wedzicha, a professor of respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London.
“This has a lot of implications. We are going to have to rewrite the guidelines and change our algorithms,” she said, noting that they currently recommend a LABA with an inhaled corticosteroid (the latter of which has adverse effects, especially in an aging population) or single-agent LAMA. “I’m pretty convinced by the data. We’ve got basically four LABA-LAMAs out there; we need to see other studies and look at different patient populations. But I think the data is pretty persuasive, so that we can now change our algorithms.”
Several ongoing studies are looking at triple therapy of a LABA-LAMA plus an inhaled corticosteroid, which may be useful in patients who continue to have exacerbations on dual bronchodilator therapy, according to Dr. Wedzicha. “I think we’ll move to the triple [therapy], because breathlessness is a problem,” she predicted, noting that bronchodilators address that symptom well. “As you get more severe, you are going to get short of breath. So I think the LABA-LAMA will stay and the inhaled corticosteroid will be added on top. That’s what I think COPD treatment will look like.”
Press conference moderator Dr. David Mannino, professor & chair (Preventive Medicine & Environmental Health) at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health in Lexington, praised the research but disagreed about its implications. “I think one very good study is just that – one very good study. Is that enough to change guidelines? I don’t think so,” he said in an interview. “I’d like to see this replicated, because in the U.S., for example, this medication isn’t even available. And if I write [a prescription] for one LABA-LAMA, what a patient actually gets may be dictated by their insurance and coverage and other things.”
“So I would like to see this done with other LABA-LAMAs, and see other head-to-head trials,” he elaborated. “And there is a great deal of boldness and risk on the part of drug companies to do head-to-head trials because they might not get a win. They lucked out in this one. You could do the same trial with products from different companies and not get the same results. And then you are left wondering what was wrong, was it patient characteristics or other things.”
The 3,362 patients studied in FLAME had disabling, symptomatic COPD and had experienced at least one exacerbation in the past year. They were randomized evenly to once-daily indacaterol-glycopyrronium (marketed outside the United States) or twice-daily salmeterol-fluticasone.
Results showed that the annual rate of any exacerbation was significantly lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone in the per protocol population (3.59 vs. 4.03; rate ratio, 0.89), with similar findings in the intent-to-treat population. Additionally, in a preplanned analysis, the findings were consistent regardless of patients’ blood levels of eosinophils, a possible marker of steroid sensitivity.
Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was also associated with a longer time to first exacerbation (71 vs. 51 days; hazard ratio, 0.84) and a lower annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations (0.98 vs. 1.19; rate ratio, 0.83).
There was no difference between groups in the risk of death, but the study lasted only a year and was not powered for that endpoint, Dr. Wedzicha pointed out. “We are seeing less deaths in patients generally in COPD because we are monitoring them very carefully,” she added.
Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was also superior to salmeterol-fluticasone when it came to improvements in health status (assessed with the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire), use of rescue medication, and lung function.
The adverse event profiles of both drug combinations were essentially as expected, Dr. Wedzicha reported. Pneumonia was less common with indacaterol-glycopyrronium (3.2% vs. 4.8%).
The indacaterol-glycopyrronium formulation available in the United States, which contains lower doses of the drugs and is used twice-daily, would likely net results similar to those seen in the trial, she speculated. However, once-daily treatment is generally associated with better compliance.
The inflammatory component of COPD still needs attention, according to Dr. Wedzicha. “There is no good evidence that a LABA-LAMA is doing anything to the underlying airway inflammation ... I think a major unmet need now is novel anti-inflammatory agents,” she said.
Dr. Wedzicha disclosed that she received nonfinancial support from Novartis during the conduct of the study; grant support and personal fees from Johnson and Johnson and Vifor Pharma; grant support, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda; personal fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Chiesi, and Napp; and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the trial. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.
SAN FRANCISCO – It may be time to revise guidelines when it comes to initial treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated by exacerbations, based on data from a phase III trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
The trial, known as FLAME, undertook a head-to-head comparison of two inhaled drug combinations among more than 3,300 patients from 43 countries. Patients were randomized to once-daily indacaterol (a long-acting beta-agonist, or LABA, bronchodilator) and glycopyrronium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, or LAMA, bronchodilator), or to twice-daily salmeterol, also a LABA bronchodilator, and the inhaled glucocorticoid fluticasone.
After a year, the annual rate of exacerbations was 11% lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone, according to results reported in a press conference and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 May 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1516385). The difference not only met the trial’s primary endpoint of noninferiority, but also established superiority.
The dual bronchodilator combination was also superior to salmeterol-fluticasone when it came to other outcomes, such as respiratory-related health status and rescue medication use, and it had a good safety profile.
“I think we can say that... a dual bronchodilator is the first-choice combination that can be used in patients with COPD,” commented lead author Dr. Jadwiga A. Wedzicha, a professor of respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London.
“This has a lot of implications. We are going to have to rewrite the guidelines and change our algorithms,” she said, noting that they currently recommend a LABA with an inhaled corticosteroid (the latter of which has adverse effects, especially in an aging population) or single-agent LAMA. “I’m pretty convinced by the data. We’ve got basically four LABA-LAMAs out there; we need to see other studies and look at different patient populations. But I think the data is pretty persuasive, so that we can now change our algorithms.”
Several ongoing studies are looking at triple therapy of a LABA-LAMA plus an inhaled corticosteroid, which may be useful in patients who continue to have exacerbations on dual bronchodilator therapy, according to Dr. Wedzicha. “I think we’ll move to the triple [therapy], because breathlessness is a problem,” she predicted, noting that bronchodilators address that symptom well. “As you get more severe, you are going to get short of breath. So I think the LABA-LAMA will stay and the inhaled corticosteroid will be added on top. That’s what I think COPD treatment will look like.”
Press conference moderator Dr. David Mannino, professor & chair (Preventive Medicine & Environmental Health) at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health in Lexington, praised the research but disagreed about its implications. “I think one very good study is just that – one very good study. Is that enough to change guidelines? I don’t think so,” he said in an interview. “I’d like to see this replicated, because in the U.S., for example, this medication isn’t even available. And if I write [a prescription] for one LABA-LAMA, what a patient actually gets may be dictated by their insurance and coverage and other things.”
“So I would like to see this done with other LABA-LAMAs, and see other head-to-head trials,” he elaborated. “And there is a great deal of boldness and risk on the part of drug companies to do head-to-head trials because they might not get a win. They lucked out in this one. You could do the same trial with products from different companies and not get the same results. And then you are left wondering what was wrong, was it patient characteristics or other things.”
The 3,362 patients studied in FLAME had disabling, symptomatic COPD and had experienced at least one exacerbation in the past year. They were randomized evenly to once-daily indacaterol-glycopyrronium (marketed outside the United States) or twice-daily salmeterol-fluticasone.
Results showed that the annual rate of any exacerbation was significantly lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone in the per protocol population (3.59 vs. 4.03; rate ratio, 0.89), with similar findings in the intent-to-treat population. Additionally, in a preplanned analysis, the findings were consistent regardless of patients’ blood levels of eosinophils, a possible marker of steroid sensitivity.
Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was also associated with a longer time to first exacerbation (71 vs. 51 days; hazard ratio, 0.84) and a lower annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations (0.98 vs. 1.19; rate ratio, 0.83).
There was no difference between groups in the risk of death, but the study lasted only a year and was not powered for that endpoint, Dr. Wedzicha pointed out. “We are seeing less deaths in patients generally in COPD because we are monitoring them very carefully,” she added.
Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was also superior to salmeterol-fluticasone when it came to improvements in health status (assessed with the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire), use of rescue medication, and lung function.
The adverse event profiles of both drug combinations were essentially as expected, Dr. Wedzicha reported. Pneumonia was less common with indacaterol-glycopyrronium (3.2% vs. 4.8%).
The indacaterol-glycopyrronium formulation available in the United States, which contains lower doses of the drugs and is used twice-daily, would likely net results similar to those seen in the trial, she speculated. However, once-daily treatment is generally associated with better compliance.
The inflammatory component of COPD still needs attention, according to Dr. Wedzicha. “There is no good evidence that a LABA-LAMA is doing anything to the underlying airway inflammation ... I think a major unmet need now is novel anti-inflammatory agents,” she said.
Dr. Wedzicha disclosed that she received nonfinancial support from Novartis during the conduct of the study; grant support and personal fees from Johnson and Johnson and Vifor Pharma; grant support, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda; personal fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Chiesi, and Napp; and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the trial. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.
SAN FRANCISCO – It may be time to revise guidelines when it comes to initial treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated by exacerbations, based on data from a phase III trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
The trial, known as FLAME, undertook a head-to-head comparison of two inhaled drug combinations among more than 3,300 patients from 43 countries. Patients were randomized to once-daily indacaterol (a long-acting beta-agonist, or LABA, bronchodilator) and glycopyrronium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, or LAMA, bronchodilator), or to twice-daily salmeterol, also a LABA bronchodilator, and the inhaled glucocorticoid fluticasone.
After a year, the annual rate of exacerbations was 11% lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone, according to results reported in a press conference and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 May 15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1516385). The difference not only met the trial’s primary endpoint of noninferiority, but also established superiority.
The dual bronchodilator combination was also superior to salmeterol-fluticasone when it came to other outcomes, such as respiratory-related health status and rescue medication use, and it had a good safety profile.
“I think we can say that... a dual bronchodilator is the first-choice combination that can be used in patients with COPD,” commented lead author Dr. Jadwiga A. Wedzicha, a professor of respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London.
“This has a lot of implications. We are going to have to rewrite the guidelines and change our algorithms,” she said, noting that they currently recommend a LABA with an inhaled corticosteroid (the latter of which has adverse effects, especially in an aging population) or single-agent LAMA. “I’m pretty convinced by the data. We’ve got basically four LABA-LAMAs out there; we need to see other studies and look at different patient populations. But I think the data is pretty persuasive, so that we can now change our algorithms.”
Several ongoing studies are looking at triple therapy of a LABA-LAMA plus an inhaled corticosteroid, which may be useful in patients who continue to have exacerbations on dual bronchodilator therapy, according to Dr. Wedzicha. “I think we’ll move to the triple [therapy], because breathlessness is a problem,” she predicted, noting that bronchodilators address that symptom well. “As you get more severe, you are going to get short of breath. So I think the LABA-LAMA will stay and the inhaled corticosteroid will be added on top. That’s what I think COPD treatment will look like.”
Press conference moderator Dr. David Mannino, professor & chair (Preventive Medicine & Environmental Health) at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health in Lexington, praised the research but disagreed about its implications. “I think one very good study is just that – one very good study. Is that enough to change guidelines? I don’t think so,” he said in an interview. “I’d like to see this replicated, because in the U.S., for example, this medication isn’t even available. And if I write [a prescription] for one LABA-LAMA, what a patient actually gets may be dictated by their insurance and coverage and other things.”
“So I would like to see this done with other LABA-LAMAs, and see other head-to-head trials,” he elaborated. “And there is a great deal of boldness and risk on the part of drug companies to do head-to-head trials because they might not get a win. They lucked out in this one. You could do the same trial with products from different companies and not get the same results. And then you are left wondering what was wrong, was it patient characteristics or other things.”
The 3,362 patients studied in FLAME had disabling, symptomatic COPD and had experienced at least one exacerbation in the past year. They were randomized evenly to once-daily indacaterol-glycopyrronium (marketed outside the United States) or twice-daily salmeterol-fluticasone.
Results showed that the annual rate of any exacerbation was significantly lower with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than with salmeterol-fluticasone in the per protocol population (3.59 vs. 4.03; rate ratio, 0.89), with similar findings in the intent-to-treat population. Additionally, in a preplanned analysis, the findings were consistent regardless of patients’ blood levels of eosinophils, a possible marker of steroid sensitivity.
Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was also associated with a longer time to first exacerbation (71 vs. 51 days; hazard ratio, 0.84) and a lower annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations (0.98 vs. 1.19; rate ratio, 0.83).
There was no difference between groups in the risk of death, but the study lasted only a year and was not powered for that endpoint, Dr. Wedzicha pointed out. “We are seeing less deaths in patients generally in COPD because we are monitoring them very carefully,” she added.
Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was also superior to salmeterol-fluticasone when it came to improvements in health status (assessed with the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire), use of rescue medication, and lung function.
The adverse event profiles of both drug combinations were essentially as expected, Dr. Wedzicha reported. Pneumonia was less common with indacaterol-glycopyrronium (3.2% vs. 4.8%).
The indacaterol-glycopyrronium formulation available in the United States, which contains lower doses of the drugs and is used twice-daily, would likely net results similar to those seen in the trial, she speculated. However, once-daily treatment is generally associated with better compliance.
The inflammatory component of COPD still needs attention, according to Dr. Wedzicha. “There is no good evidence that a LABA-LAMA is doing anything to the underlying airway inflammation ... I think a major unmet need now is novel anti-inflammatory agents,” she said.
Dr. Wedzicha disclosed that she received nonfinancial support from Novartis during the conduct of the study; grant support and personal fees from Johnson and Johnson and Vifor Pharma; grant support, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline, and Takeda; personal fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Chiesi, and Napp; and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the trial. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: The combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium is more efficacious than the combination of salmeterol and fluticasone for preventing exacerbations in patients with high-risk COPD.
Major finding: The annual rate of exacerbations with indacaterol-glycopyrronium was not inferior – and was in fact superior – to that with salmeterol-fluticasone (rate ratio, 0.89).
Data source: A randomized noninferiority phase III trial among 3,362 patients with COPD who had experienced at least one exacerbation in the past year (FLAME trial).
Disclosures: Dr. Wedzicha disclosed that she received nonfinancial support from Novartis during the conduct of the study; grant support and personal fees from Johnson and Johnson and Vifor Pharma; grant support, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline and Takeda; personal fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Chiesi, and Napp; and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim outside the trial. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.
Aspirin falls short for the prevention of ARDS
SAN FRANCISCO – Despite evidence implicating platelets in the development and resolution of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the antiplatelet agent aspirin was not efficacious for prevention, according to the findings from a phase IIb trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
A total of 400 at-risk patients from emergency departments were enrolled in the trial, known as LIPS-A (Lung Injury Prevention Study With Aspirin), and randomized evenly to aspirin or placebo, started within 24 hours of presentation.
Overall, about 10% of patients developed ARDS by day 7, with no significant difference between the groups, according to results reported at the conference and simultaneously published in JAMA (2016 May 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.6330).
“In patients at risk for ARDS, aspirin therapy administered within 24 hours of presentation to the emergency department was safe. However, it did not decrease the primary outcome of ARDS development or improve any of the secondary outcomes,” commented lead author Dr. Daryl J. Kor, an associate professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “The results of this phase IIb trial do not support continuation to a larger phase III trial.”
Nonetheless, as the first large multicenter ARDS prevention trial, LIPS-A provided an abundance of information about research in this challenging area, he stressed. For example, the information gleaned will help inform future trials on issues related to timely enrollment, risk prediction, and work flow modifications.
“In terms of limitations, we should note that there was a very low rate of ARDS, much lower than we anticipated,” Dr. Kor said. Patients also had less severe disease than expected. “There are always questions about the dose and duration [of treatment], as well as whether or not the ED environment is early enough for an ARDS prevention trial. Almost 15% of our patient population had prevalent bilateral infiltrates by the time they presented to the emergency department,” he noted.
Despite the negative LIPS-A findings, there may still be a role for aspirin in the treatment of ARDS, according to conference attendee Dr. Ivor S. Douglas, chief of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine, and director of the medical intensive care unit, at the Denver Health Medical Center and the University of Colorado.
ARDS lacks a good biomarker similar to the troponin used to identify and guide aspirin treatment in myocardial infarction, he explained in an interview.
“I continue to believe that there are several endophenotypes, subgroups of the disease where an endothelial vascular phenotype is predominant,” Dr. Douglas explained. “And as we understand more about the fundamental biology of the disease, I suspect that many of these things that have been shown in unselected populations not to have efficacy – you didn’t hear me say negative, but not to have efficacy – may well be revisited within the context of a more well defined phenotype for the disease.
“I think it’s imperative that we don’t just call the balls and strikes here,” Dr. Douglas added. “The idea is to move the science forward and to do it in a really thoughtful and rigorous way.”
LIPS-A enrolled adult patients from 16 U.S. academic hospitals who were at risk for ARDS, defined as having a Lung Injury Prediction Score of 4 or greater (corresponding to a risk of about 18%), in the emergency department and were planned to be hospitalized.
They were randomized to receive aspirin (a 325-mg loading dose, followed by 81 mg/day) or placebo within 24 hours of emergency department presentation, with continuation out to hospital day 7, discharge, or death.
On average, patients received their first dose of the study drug slightly less than 13 hours after randomization, Dr. Kor reported.
Incident ARDS by day 7 was seen in 10.3% of the aspirin group and 8.7% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference. Findings were similar for each study site individually.
The groups were also statistically indistinguishable with respect to mean number of ventilator-free days out to day 28 (24.9 vs. 25.2), mean intensive care unit length of stay (5.2 vs. 5.4 days), and the 28-day rate of survival (90% vs. 90%), among other secondary outcomes.
In terms of safety, the incidence of bleeding-related adverse events was not significantly greater with aspirin than with placebo (5.6% vs. 2.6%). Measures of renal function were also essentially the same.
Analyses of a host of biomarkers associated with injury, inflammation, and thrombosis generally showed no differences in levels between groups. The possible exception was a trend toward a higher level of interleukin-2 in the aspirin group.
Dr. Kor disclosed that he receives personal fees from UpToDate.
SAN FRANCISCO – Despite evidence implicating platelets in the development and resolution of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the antiplatelet agent aspirin was not efficacious for prevention, according to the findings from a phase IIb trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
A total of 400 at-risk patients from emergency departments were enrolled in the trial, known as LIPS-A (Lung Injury Prevention Study With Aspirin), and randomized evenly to aspirin or placebo, started within 24 hours of presentation.
Overall, about 10% of patients developed ARDS by day 7, with no significant difference between the groups, according to results reported at the conference and simultaneously published in JAMA (2016 May 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.6330).
“In patients at risk for ARDS, aspirin therapy administered within 24 hours of presentation to the emergency department was safe. However, it did not decrease the primary outcome of ARDS development or improve any of the secondary outcomes,” commented lead author Dr. Daryl J. Kor, an associate professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “The results of this phase IIb trial do not support continuation to a larger phase III trial.”
Nonetheless, as the first large multicenter ARDS prevention trial, LIPS-A provided an abundance of information about research in this challenging area, he stressed. For example, the information gleaned will help inform future trials on issues related to timely enrollment, risk prediction, and work flow modifications.
“In terms of limitations, we should note that there was a very low rate of ARDS, much lower than we anticipated,” Dr. Kor said. Patients also had less severe disease than expected. “There are always questions about the dose and duration [of treatment], as well as whether or not the ED environment is early enough for an ARDS prevention trial. Almost 15% of our patient population had prevalent bilateral infiltrates by the time they presented to the emergency department,” he noted.
Despite the negative LIPS-A findings, there may still be a role for aspirin in the treatment of ARDS, according to conference attendee Dr. Ivor S. Douglas, chief of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine, and director of the medical intensive care unit, at the Denver Health Medical Center and the University of Colorado.
ARDS lacks a good biomarker similar to the troponin used to identify and guide aspirin treatment in myocardial infarction, he explained in an interview.
“I continue to believe that there are several endophenotypes, subgroups of the disease where an endothelial vascular phenotype is predominant,” Dr. Douglas explained. “And as we understand more about the fundamental biology of the disease, I suspect that many of these things that have been shown in unselected populations not to have efficacy – you didn’t hear me say negative, but not to have efficacy – may well be revisited within the context of a more well defined phenotype for the disease.
“I think it’s imperative that we don’t just call the balls and strikes here,” Dr. Douglas added. “The idea is to move the science forward and to do it in a really thoughtful and rigorous way.”
LIPS-A enrolled adult patients from 16 U.S. academic hospitals who were at risk for ARDS, defined as having a Lung Injury Prediction Score of 4 or greater (corresponding to a risk of about 18%), in the emergency department and were planned to be hospitalized.
They were randomized to receive aspirin (a 325-mg loading dose, followed by 81 mg/day) or placebo within 24 hours of emergency department presentation, with continuation out to hospital day 7, discharge, or death.
On average, patients received their first dose of the study drug slightly less than 13 hours after randomization, Dr. Kor reported.
Incident ARDS by day 7 was seen in 10.3% of the aspirin group and 8.7% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference. Findings were similar for each study site individually.
The groups were also statistically indistinguishable with respect to mean number of ventilator-free days out to day 28 (24.9 vs. 25.2), mean intensive care unit length of stay (5.2 vs. 5.4 days), and the 28-day rate of survival (90% vs. 90%), among other secondary outcomes.
In terms of safety, the incidence of bleeding-related adverse events was not significantly greater with aspirin than with placebo (5.6% vs. 2.6%). Measures of renal function were also essentially the same.
Analyses of a host of biomarkers associated with injury, inflammation, and thrombosis generally showed no differences in levels between groups. The possible exception was a trend toward a higher level of interleukin-2 in the aspirin group.
Dr. Kor disclosed that he receives personal fees from UpToDate.
SAN FRANCISCO – Despite evidence implicating platelets in the development and resolution of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the antiplatelet agent aspirin was not efficacious for prevention, according to the findings from a phase IIb trial reported at an international conference of the American Thoracic Society.
A total of 400 at-risk patients from emergency departments were enrolled in the trial, known as LIPS-A (Lung Injury Prevention Study With Aspirin), and randomized evenly to aspirin or placebo, started within 24 hours of presentation.
Overall, about 10% of patients developed ARDS by day 7, with no significant difference between the groups, according to results reported at the conference and simultaneously published in JAMA (2016 May 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.6330).
“In patients at risk for ARDS, aspirin therapy administered within 24 hours of presentation to the emergency department was safe. However, it did not decrease the primary outcome of ARDS development or improve any of the secondary outcomes,” commented lead author Dr. Daryl J. Kor, an associate professor of anesthesiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “The results of this phase IIb trial do not support continuation to a larger phase III trial.”
Nonetheless, as the first large multicenter ARDS prevention trial, LIPS-A provided an abundance of information about research in this challenging area, he stressed. For example, the information gleaned will help inform future trials on issues related to timely enrollment, risk prediction, and work flow modifications.
“In terms of limitations, we should note that there was a very low rate of ARDS, much lower than we anticipated,” Dr. Kor said. Patients also had less severe disease than expected. “There are always questions about the dose and duration [of treatment], as well as whether or not the ED environment is early enough for an ARDS prevention trial. Almost 15% of our patient population had prevalent bilateral infiltrates by the time they presented to the emergency department,” he noted.
Despite the negative LIPS-A findings, there may still be a role for aspirin in the treatment of ARDS, according to conference attendee Dr. Ivor S. Douglas, chief of pulmonary sciences and critical care medicine, and director of the medical intensive care unit, at the Denver Health Medical Center and the University of Colorado.
ARDS lacks a good biomarker similar to the troponin used to identify and guide aspirin treatment in myocardial infarction, he explained in an interview.
“I continue to believe that there are several endophenotypes, subgroups of the disease where an endothelial vascular phenotype is predominant,” Dr. Douglas explained. “And as we understand more about the fundamental biology of the disease, I suspect that many of these things that have been shown in unselected populations not to have efficacy – you didn’t hear me say negative, but not to have efficacy – may well be revisited within the context of a more well defined phenotype for the disease.
“I think it’s imperative that we don’t just call the balls and strikes here,” Dr. Douglas added. “The idea is to move the science forward and to do it in a really thoughtful and rigorous way.”
LIPS-A enrolled adult patients from 16 U.S. academic hospitals who were at risk for ARDS, defined as having a Lung Injury Prediction Score of 4 or greater (corresponding to a risk of about 18%), in the emergency department and were planned to be hospitalized.
They were randomized to receive aspirin (a 325-mg loading dose, followed by 81 mg/day) or placebo within 24 hours of emergency department presentation, with continuation out to hospital day 7, discharge, or death.
On average, patients received their first dose of the study drug slightly less than 13 hours after randomization, Dr. Kor reported.
Incident ARDS by day 7 was seen in 10.3% of the aspirin group and 8.7% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference. Findings were similar for each study site individually.
The groups were also statistically indistinguishable with respect to mean number of ventilator-free days out to day 28 (24.9 vs. 25.2), mean intensive care unit length of stay (5.2 vs. 5.4 days), and the 28-day rate of survival (90% vs. 90%), among other secondary outcomes.
In terms of safety, the incidence of bleeding-related adverse events was not significantly greater with aspirin than with placebo (5.6% vs. 2.6%). Measures of renal function were also essentially the same.
Analyses of a host of biomarkers associated with injury, inflammation, and thrombosis generally showed no differences in levels between groups. The possible exception was a trend toward a higher level of interleukin-2 in the aspirin group.
Dr. Kor disclosed that he receives personal fees from UpToDate.
AT ATS 2016
Key clinical point: Aspirin therapy did not reduce the incidence of ARDS in at-risk patients.
Major finding: Roughly 10% of patients developed ARDS, with no significant difference between the aspirin and placebo groups.
Data source: A multicenter, randomized, phase IIb trial among 400 emergency department patients at risk for ARDS.
Disclosures: Dr. Kor disclosed that he receives personal fees from UpToDate.