Pulmonary Health Hub

Examining sputum from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may help predict the course of the disease.

A mass spectrometric panel of biomarkers related to mucus hydration and inflammation examined in sputa showed elevated levels of metabolites from multiple pathways in patients with COPD. These correlated with sputum neutrophil counts and COPD exacerbations. In particular, sialic acid and hypoxanthine concentrations were strongly associated with disease severity, according to a study reported in the journal CHEST^® authored by Charles R. Esther Jr. MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Given that an improved understanding of the pathways associated with airway pathophysiology in COPD will identify new predictive biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets, Dr. Esther and colleagues posed the question: Which physiologic pathways are altered and predict exacerbations in the airways of subjects with COPD?

They noted that in persons with COPD – characterized by dominant small airway obstruction associated with airway inflammation – multiple inflammatory pathways, as well as indices of oxidative stress (including oxidized glutathione and 8-isoprostane), are elevated in sputum. Because inflammation is a challenging therapeutic target, identification of other biologic pathways involved in COPD pathogenesis could point to novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Using this approach in cystic fibrosis (CF), the authors have previously identified small molecule metabolites correlated with airway inflammation. Findings from that research supported development of a mass spectrometric biomarker panel for simultaneous measurement of inflammatory markers coupled to biomarkers of mucus hydration. The researchers applied this technology to sputum supernatants collected through the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS), which included subjects with COPD, as well as relevant smoking and nonsmoking controls.

Addressing inflammation

“Inhaled steroids are really more effective for allergic inflammation as in asthma and less so for the neutrophilic inflammation that dominates in COPD. The challenge is that neutrophilic inflammation is also a key response to infection, and it’s really hard to find an anti-inflammatory that suppresses neutrophilic inflammation well enough to get clinical benefit but not so much that the  patient becomes vulnerable to infection. Lots of clinical trials of anti-inflammatories in cystic fibrosis or COPD have been stopped because treated subjects had more trouble with infection,” Dr. Esther stated in an interview,

The investigators analyzed cell-free sputum supernatants from 980 subjects, including samples from 77 healthy nonsmokers (NS), 341 ever-smokers with preserved spirometry (SPS), and 562 subjects with COPD (178 GOLD [Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease]1, 303 GOLD 2, and 81 GOLD 3). Among the subjects with COPD, elevated biomarkers from multiple pathways correlated with sputum neutrophil counts.

The most significant analytes (at FDR [False Discovery Rate] 0.1) were sialic acid (a mucin marker), hypoxanthine, xanthine, methylthioadenosine, adenine, and glutathione, with sialic acid and hypoxanthine strongly associated with measures of disease severity. Elevation of sialic acid and hypoxanthine were associated with shorter time to exacerbation and improved prediction models of future exacerbations.
 

Study results

Sialic acid was elevated in all GOLD groups relative to NS healthy controls, with a 2.8-fold (0.44 log) increase in GOLD 2 and 3.7 fold (0.56 log) increase in GOLD 3 relative to NS. Sialic acid was also elevated in the most severe disease cohorts (GOLD 2 and GOLD 3) relative to smokers with preserved spirometry (SPS) and those with less severe disease (GOLD 1).

Because mucin secretion and inflammation are also related to the pathophysiology of pulmonary exacerbations, Dr. Esther and colleagues had hypothesized that sputum biomarkers would be predictive of future exacerbations. Within the full cohort, both sialic acid and hypoxanthine were significantly elevated in those who had multiple (two or more) pulmonary exacerbations relative to those who had none (P = .001). Similar, though less significant findings were observed for xanthine (P = .01), methylthioadenosine (P = .01), adenine (P = .01), and glutathione (P = .01).
 

Sputum tests needed

While tests still need to be developed, Dr. Esther noted in an interview that they would be based on well-established technologies commonly utilized in clinical laboratories. “Sputum biomarkers of mucus hydration and adenosine metabolism could help clinicians predict which patients with COPD are likely to experience multiple pulmonary exacerbations. Tests would be applied to patients with COPD at higher risk for exacerbations; for example, those who have low lung function or a history of prior exacerbations.”

Dr. Esther noted that these biomarkers could be helpful in developing novel therapies. “Using sialic acid to assess mucus concentrations is much easier than other methods, so it could help in developing mucolytic treatments. Also, adenosine metabolism represents a novel therapeutic target in COPD. Drugs that modify adenosine metabolism that have been approved for other diseases such as gout could be tested in COPD. As with mucus hydration, the biomarkers we identified (particularly hypoxanthine) could be utilized to make sure that novel therapies are having the intended impact on airway adenosine metabolism.”

The research was supported by SPIROMICS (funded by NIH and the COPD Foundation). Dr. Esther reported having no relevant disclosures.

Examining sputum from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may help predict the course of the disease.

A mass spectrometric panel of biomarkers related to mucus hydration and inflammation examined in sputa showed elevated levels of metabolites from multiple pathways in patients with COPD. These correlated with sputum neutrophil counts and COPD exacerbations. In particular, sialic acid and hypoxanthine concentrations were strongly associated with disease severity, according to a study reported in the journal CHEST^® authored by Charles R. Esther Jr. MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Given that an improved understanding of the pathways associated with airway pathophysiology in COPD will identify new predictive biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets, Dr. Esther and colleagues posed the question: Which physiologic pathways are altered and predict exacerbations in the airways of subjects with COPD?

They noted that in persons with COPD – characterized by dominant small airway obstruction associated with airway inflammation – multiple inflammatory pathways, as well as indices of oxidative stress (including oxidized glutathione and 8-isoprostane), are elevated in sputum. Because inflammation is a challenging therapeutic target, identification of other biologic pathways involved in COPD pathogenesis could point to novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Using this approach in cystic fibrosis (CF), the authors have previously identified small molecule metabolites correlated with airway inflammation. Findings from that research supported development of a mass spectrometric biomarker panel for simultaneous measurement of inflammatory markers coupled to biomarkers of mucus hydration. The researchers applied this technology to sputum supernatants collected through the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS), which included subjects with COPD, as well as relevant smoking and nonsmoking controls.

Addressing inflammation

“Inhaled steroids are really more effective for allergic inflammation as in asthma and less so for the neutrophilic inflammation that dominates in COPD. The challenge is that neutrophilic inflammation is also a key response to infection, and it’s really hard to find an anti-inflammatory that suppresses neutrophilic inflammation well enough to get clinical benefit but not so much that the  patient becomes vulnerable to infection. Lots of clinical trials of anti-inflammatories in cystic fibrosis or COPD have been stopped because treated subjects had more trouble with infection,” Dr. Esther stated in an interview,

The investigators analyzed cell-free sputum supernatants from 980 subjects, including samples from 77 healthy nonsmokers (NS), 341 ever-smokers with preserved spirometry (SPS), and 562 subjects with COPD (178 GOLD [Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease]1, 303 GOLD 2, and 81 GOLD 3). Among the subjects with COPD, elevated biomarkers from multiple pathways correlated with sputum neutrophil counts.

The most significant analytes (at FDR [False Discovery Rate] 0.1) were sialic acid (a mucin marker), hypoxanthine, xanthine, methylthioadenosine, adenine, and glutathione, with sialic acid and hypoxanthine strongly associated with measures of disease severity. Elevation of sialic acid and hypoxanthine were associated with shorter time to exacerbation and improved prediction models of future exacerbations.
 

Study results

Sialic acid was elevated in all GOLD groups relative to NS healthy controls, with a 2.8-fold (0.44 log) increase in GOLD 2 and 3.7 fold (0.56 log) increase in GOLD 3 relative to NS. Sialic acid was also elevated in the most severe disease cohorts (GOLD 2 and GOLD 3) relative to smokers with preserved spirometry (SPS) and those with less severe disease (GOLD 1).

Because mucin secretion and inflammation are also related to the pathophysiology of pulmonary exacerbations, Dr. Esther and colleagues had hypothesized that sputum biomarkers would be predictive of future exacerbations. Within the full cohort, both sialic acid and hypoxanthine were significantly elevated in those who had multiple (two or more) pulmonary exacerbations relative to those who had none (P = .001). Similar, though less significant findings were observed for xanthine (P = .01), methylthioadenosine (P = .01), adenine (P = .01), and glutathione (P = .01).
 

Sputum tests needed

While tests still need to be developed, Dr. Esther noted in an interview that they would be based on well-established technologies commonly utilized in clinical laboratories. “Sputum biomarkers of mucus hydration and adenosine metabolism could help clinicians predict which patients with COPD are likely to experience multiple pulmonary exacerbations. Tests would be applied to patients with COPD at higher risk for exacerbations; for example, those who have low lung function or a history of prior exacerbations.”

Dr. Esther noted that these biomarkers could be helpful in developing novel therapies. “Using sialic acid to assess mucus concentrations is much easier than other methods, so it could help in developing mucolytic treatments. Also, adenosine metabolism represents a novel therapeutic target in COPD. Drugs that modify adenosine metabolism that have been approved for other diseases such as gout could be tested in COPD. As with mucus hydration, the biomarkers we identified (particularly hypoxanthine) could be utilized to make sure that novel therapies are having the intended impact on airway adenosine metabolism.”

The research was supported by SPIROMICS (funded by NIH and the COPD Foundation). Dr. Esther reported having no relevant disclosures.

Examining sputum from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may help predict the course of the disease.

A mass spectrometric panel of biomarkers related to mucus hydration and inflammation examined in sputa showed elevated levels of metabolites from multiple pathways in patients with COPD. These correlated with sputum neutrophil counts and COPD exacerbations. In particular, sialic acid and hypoxanthine concentrations were strongly associated with disease severity, according to a study reported in the journal CHEST^® authored by Charles R. Esther Jr. MD, PhD, and colleagues.

Given that an improved understanding of the pathways associated with airway pathophysiology in COPD will identify new predictive biomarkers and novel therapeutic targets, Dr. Esther and colleagues posed the question: Which physiologic pathways are altered and predict exacerbations in the airways of subjects with COPD?

They noted that in persons with COPD – characterized by dominant small airway obstruction associated with airway inflammation – multiple inflammatory pathways, as well as indices of oxidative stress (including oxidized glutathione and 8-isoprostane), are elevated in sputum. Because inflammation is a challenging therapeutic target, identification of other biologic pathways involved in COPD pathogenesis could point to novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

Using this approach in cystic fibrosis (CF), the authors have previously identified small molecule metabolites correlated with airway inflammation. Findings from that research supported development of a mass spectrometric biomarker panel for simultaneous measurement of inflammatory markers coupled to biomarkers of mucus hydration. The researchers applied this technology to sputum supernatants collected through the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS), which included subjects with COPD, as well as relevant smoking and nonsmoking controls.

Addressing inflammation

“Inhaled steroids are really more effective for allergic inflammation as in asthma and less so for the neutrophilic inflammation that dominates in COPD. The challenge is that neutrophilic inflammation is also a key response to infection, and it’s really hard to find an anti-inflammatory that suppresses neutrophilic inflammation well enough to get clinical benefit but not so much that the  patient becomes vulnerable to infection. Lots of clinical trials of anti-inflammatories in cystic fibrosis or COPD have been stopped because treated subjects had more trouble with infection,” Dr. Esther stated in an interview,

The investigators analyzed cell-free sputum supernatants from 980 subjects, including samples from 77 healthy nonsmokers (NS), 341 ever-smokers with preserved spirometry (SPS), and 562 subjects with COPD (178 GOLD [Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease]1, 303 GOLD 2, and 81 GOLD 3). Among the subjects with COPD, elevated biomarkers from multiple pathways correlated with sputum neutrophil counts.

The most significant analytes (at FDR [False Discovery Rate] 0.1) were sialic acid (a mucin marker), hypoxanthine, xanthine, methylthioadenosine, adenine, and glutathione, with sialic acid and hypoxanthine strongly associated with measures of disease severity. Elevation of sialic acid and hypoxanthine were associated with shorter time to exacerbation and improved prediction models of future exacerbations.
 

Study results

Sialic acid was elevated in all GOLD groups relative to NS healthy controls, with a 2.8-fold (0.44 log) increase in GOLD 2 and 3.7 fold (0.56 log) increase in GOLD 3 relative to NS. Sialic acid was also elevated in the most severe disease cohorts (GOLD 2 and GOLD 3) relative to smokers with preserved spirometry (SPS) and those with less severe disease (GOLD 1).

Because mucin secretion and inflammation are also related to the pathophysiology of pulmonary exacerbations, Dr. Esther and colleagues had hypothesized that sputum biomarkers would be predictive of future exacerbations. Within the full cohort, both sialic acid and hypoxanthine were significantly elevated in those who had multiple (two or more) pulmonary exacerbations relative to those who had none (P = .001). Similar, though less significant findings were observed for xanthine (P = .01), methylthioadenosine (P = .01), adenine (P = .01), and glutathione (P = .01).
 

Sputum tests needed

While tests still need to be developed, Dr. Esther noted in an interview that they would be based on well-established technologies commonly utilized in clinical laboratories. “Sputum biomarkers of mucus hydration and adenosine metabolism could help clinicians predict which patients with COPD are likely to experience multiple pulmonary exacerbations. Tests would be applied to patients with COPD at higher risk for exacerbations; for example, those who have low lung function or a history of prior exacerbations.”

Dr. Esther noted that these biomarkers could be helpful in developing novel therapies. “Using sialic acid to assess mucus concentrations is much easier than other methods, so it could help in developing mucolytic treatments. Also, adenosine metabolism represents a novel therapeutic target in COPD. Drugs that modify adenosine metabolism that have been approved for other diseases such as gout could be tested in COPD. As with mucus hydration, the biomarkers we identified (particularly hypoxanthine) could be utilized to make sure that novel therapies are having the intended impact on airway adenosine metabolism.”

The research was supported by SPIROMICS (funded by NIH and the COPD Foundation). Dr. Esther reported having no relevant disclosures.

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Adolescents and adults younger than age 21 who develop myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination frequently have abnormal findings on cardiac MRI (cMRI) but most have a mild clinical course with rapid resolution of symptoms, a new study concludes.

• Most patients were male (90.6%), White (66.2%) and with a median age of 15.8 years.
• Suspected myocarditis occurred in 136 patients (97.8%) following mRNA vaccine, with 131 (94.2%) following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 128 cases (91.4%) occurred after the second dose.
• Symptoms started a median of 2 days (range 0 to 22 days) following vaccination administration.
• Chest pain was the most common symptom (99.3%), with fever present in 30.9% of patients and shortness of breath in 27.3%.
• Patients were treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (81.3%), intravenous immunoglobulin (21.6%), glucocorticoids (21.6%), colchicine (7.9%) or no anti-inflammatory therapies (8.6%).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit; 2 received inotropic/vasoactive support; none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died.
• Median time spent in the hospital was 2 days.
• A total of 111 patients had elevated troponin I (8.12 ng/mL) and 28 had elevated troponin T (0.61 ng/mL).
• More than two-thirds (69.8%) had abnormal electrocardiograms and/or arrhythmias (7 with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia).
• Twenty-six patients (18.7%) had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 55% on echocardiogram; LVEF had returned to normal in the 25 who returned for follow-up.
• 75 of 97 patients (77.3%) who underwent cMRI at a median of 5 days from symptom onset had abnormal findings; 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria for myocarditis.

“These data suggest that most cases of suspected COVID-19 vaccine–related myocarditis in people younger than 21 are mild and resolve quickly,” corresponding author Dongngan Truong, MD, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah and Primary Children’s Hospital, Salt Lake City, said in a statement.

“We were very happy to see that type of recovery. However, we are awaiting further studies to better understand the long-term outcomes of patients who have had COVID-19 vaccination-related myocarditis. We also need to study the risk factors and mechanisms for this rare complication,” Dr. Truong added.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said these findings support the AHA’s position that COVID-19 vaccines are “safe, highly effective, and fundamental to saving lives, protecting our families and communities against COVID-19, and ending the pandemic.”

The study received no funding. Dr. Truong consults for Pfizer on vaccine-associated myocarditis. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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

An abstract and poster presentation questioning the safety of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, embraced by some and lambasted by others, has drawn an “expression of concern” from the American Heart Association, along with a bid for correction.

The abstract in question concludes that COVID vaccines “dramatically increase” levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, and therefore, the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), based on pre- and post-vaccination results of an obscure blood panel called the PULS Cardiac Test (GD Biosciences). The findings were presented at the AHA’s 2021 Scientific Sessionsas, an uncontrolled observational study of 566 patients in a preventive cardiology practice.

Some on social media have seized on the abstract as evidence of serious potential harm from the two available mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). But others contend that the study’s described design and findings are specious and its conclusions overstated.

They also point to the notoriety of its one listed author, Steven R. Gundry, MD, who promotes his diet books and supplements as well as fringe, highly criticized theories about diet and disease on several websites, including drgundry.com. Dr. Gundry has not responded to requests for an interview.

Dr. Gundry’s abstract from the AHA Scientific Sessions 2021, available on the meeting’s program planner, was marked with an “expression of concern” by the AHA that is to stand “until a suitable correction is published, to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.”

The expression of concern statement, also published online Nov. 24 in Circulation, says “potential errors in the abstract” were brought to the attention of the meeting planners. “Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.”

The biomarker elevations on which the abstract’s conclusions are based included hepatocyte growth factor, “which serves as a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue,” it states.

“The expression of concern about the abstract will remain in place until a correction is accepted and published” in Circulation, AHA spokesperson Suzanne Grant told this news organization by email.

“The specific data needed will be up to the abstract author to determine and supply,” she said, noting that Dr. Gundry “has been in communication with the journal throughout this process.”

Submitting researchers “must always attest to the validity of the abstract,” Ms. Grant said. “Abstracts are then curated by independent review panels, blinded to the identities of the abstract authors, and are considered based on the potential to add to the diversity of scientific issues and views discussed at the meeting.”

Regarding the AHA’s system for vetting abstracts vying for acceptance to the scientific sessions, she said it is not primarily intended to “evaluate scientific validity” and that the organization is “currently reviewing its existing abstract submission processes.”

A recent Reuters report reviews the controversy and provides links to criticisms of the study on social media.

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

A French population-based study provides further evidence that the BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine does not increase the short-term risk for serious cardiovascular adverse events in older people.

The study showed no increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or pulmonary embolism (PE) following vaccination in adults aged 75 years or older in the 14 days following vaccination.

“These findings regarding the BNT162b2 vaccine’s short-term cardiovascular safety profile in older people are reassuring. They should be taken into account by doctors when considering implementing a third dose of the vaccine in older people,” Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, with the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety, Saint-Denis, France, said in an interview.

Ridofranz/Getty Images

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

Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) complete and respond to pulmonary rehabilitation at rates similar to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to results of a real-world study. The findings reported in an article published in the journal CHEST^® reinforce pulmonary rehabilitation’s benefits for this population.

A progressive decline in respiratory and physical function characterizes IPF, with median survival from diagnosis of 3-5 years, according to Claire Nolan, PhD, of Harefield Hospital, Middlesex, England, and colleagues. The effects of pharmacologic therapies on IPF on symptom burden and quality of life are modest, although lung function decline may be slowed. Supporting evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation benefit in IPF is more modest than it is for COPD, for which exercise capacity, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life improvement have been demonstrated.

“We did not design a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Nolan said in an interview, “as it was considered unethical by the local ethics committee to withhold pulmonary rehabilitation based on clinical guidance in the United Kingdom.” She pointed out that initial pulmonary rehabilitation trials in COPD included an intervention (pulmonary rehabilitation) and a control (standard medical care) arm.

The study aims were to compare the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation with real-world data between IPF and COPD with respect to magnitude of effect and survival. The authors’ hypothesis was that IPF patients would have a blunted response to pulmonary rehabilitation with reduced completion rates, compared with a matched COPD group, and with increased mortality.
 

Study details

Investigators use propensity score matching of 163 IPF patients with a control group of 163 patients with COPD referred to pulmonary rehabilitation. Completion rates, responses, and survival status were recorded for 1-year following pulmonary rehabilitation discharge. The 8-week outpatient program was composed of two supervised exercise and education sessions with additional unsupervised home-based exercise each week.

While spirometry data, as expected, showed a higher proportion of IPF patients using supplemental oxygen, pulmonary rehabilitation completion rates were similar for both groups (IPF, 69%; COPD, 63%; P = .24) and there was no between group difference in the number of sessions attended (P = .39). Medical Research Council (muscle strength) (MRC), incremental shuttle walk test (ISW), and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire total score (CRQ-T) improved significantly in both groups, again with no significant difference between groups.

Over the study course, there was progressive, significant worsening of forced vital capacity percentage, predicted, prescription supplemental oxygen, resting peripheral oxygen saturation, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and pulmonary rehabilitation adherence across groups of responders (n = 63; 38%), nonresponders (n = 50; 31%) and noncompleters (n = 50; 31%). Among the IPF patients, 6 died before completing pulmonary rehabilitation, with 42 (27%) dying during follow-up.
 

Benefits of rehabilitation

Multivariable analyses showed that noncompletion and nonresponse were associated with significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality at 1-year. Also, time to all-cause mortality was shorter (P = .001) for noncompleters and nonresponders, compared with completers. A trend toward higher completion rates in the IPF group, compared with the COPD group, may be explained, the researchers explained, by fewer hospitalizations over the prior 12 months in the IPF group.

“Although many programs are designed for people with COPD,” Dr. Nolan and colleagues concluded, “our study demonstrates that people with IPF have similar clinical benefits and completion rates to those with COPD. These data reinforce the importance of referral to and engagement in pulmonary rehabilitation amongst the IPF population.”

These findings, Dr. Nolan emphasized, emerged from a single center, and validation in other settings is needed.

This study was funded by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (2014-07-089) and a Medical Research Council New Investigator Research Grant (98576).

Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) complete and respond to pulmonary rehabilitation at rates similar to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to results of a real-world study. The findings reported in an article published in the journal CHEST^® reinforce pulmonary rehabilitation’s benefits for this population.

A progressive decline in respiratory and physical function characterizes IPF, with median survival from diagnosis of 3-5 years, according to Claire Nolan, PhD, of Harefield Hospital, Middlesex, England, and colleagues. The effects of pharmacologic therapies on IPF on symptom burden and quality of life are modest, although lung function decline may be slowed. Supporting evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation benefit in IPF is more modest than it is for COPD, for which exercise capacity, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life improvement have been demonstrated.

“We did not design a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Nolan said in an interview, “as it was considered unethical by the local ethics committee to withhold pulmonary rehabilitation based on clinical guidance in the United Kingdom.” She pointed out that initial pulmonary rehabilitation trials in COPD included an intervention (pulmonary rehabilitation) and a control (standard medical care) arm.

The study aims were to compare the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation with real-world data between IPF and COPD with respect to magnitude of effect and survival. The authors’ hypothesis was that IPF patients would have a blunted response to pulmonary rehabilitation with reduced completion rates, compared with a matched COPD group, and with increased mortality.
 

Study details

Investigators use propensity score matching of 163 IPF patients with a control group of 163 patients with COPD referred to pulmonary rehabilitation. Completion rates, responses, and survival status were recorded for 1-year following pulmonary rehabilitation discharge. The 8-week outpatient program was composed of two supervised exercise and education sessions with additional unsupervised home-based exercise each week.

While spirometry data, as expected, showed a higher proportion of IPF patients using supplemental oxygen, pulmonary rehabilitation completion rates were similar for both groups (IPF, 69%; COPD, 63%; P = .24) and there was no between group difference in the number of sessions attended (P = .39). Medical Research Council (muscle strength) (MRC), incremental shuttle walk test (ISW), and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire total score (CRQ-T) improved significantly in both groups, again with no significant difference between groups.

Over the study course, there was progressive, significant worsening of forced vital capacity percentage, predicted, prescription supplemental oxygen, resting peripheral oxygen saturation, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and pulmonary rehabilitation adherence across groups of responders (n = 63; 38%), nonresponders (n = 50; 31%) and noncompleters (n = 50; 31%). Among the IPF patients, 6 died before completing pulmonary rehabilitation, with 42 (27%) dying during follow-up.
 

Benefits of rehabilitation

Multivariable analyses showed that noncompletion and nonresponse were associated with significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality at 1-year. Also, time to all-cause mortality was shorter (P = .001) for noncompleters and nonresponders, compared with completers. A trend toward higher completion rates in the IPF group, compared with the COPD group, may be explained, the researchers explained, by fewer hospitalizations over the prior 12 months in the IPF group.

“Although many programs are designed for people with COPD,” Dr. Nolan and colleagues concluded, “our study demonstrates that people with IPF have similar clinical benefits and completion rates to those with COPD. These data reinforce the importance of referral to and engagement in pulmonary rehabilitation amongst the IPF population.”

These findings, Dr. Nolan emphasized, emerged from a single center, and validation in other settings is needed.

This study was funded by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (2014-07-089) and a Medical Research Council New Investigator Research Grant (98576).

Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) complete and respond to pulmonary rehabilitation at rates similar to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to results of a real-world study. The findings reported in an article published in the journal CHEST^® reinforce pulmonary rehabilitation’s benefits for this population.

A progressive decline in respiratory and physical function characterizes IPF, with median survival from diagnosis of 3-5 years, according to Claire Nolan, PhD, of Harefield Hospital, Middlesex, England, and colleagues. The effects of pharmacologic therapies on IPF on symptom burden and quality of life are modest, although lung function decline may be slowed. Supporting evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation benefit in IPF is more modest than it is for COPD, for which exercise capacity, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life improvement have been demonstrated.

“We did not design a randomized, controlled trial,” Dr. Nolan said in an interview, “as it was considered unethical by the local ethics committee to withhold pulmonary rehabilitation based on clinical guidance in the United Kingdom.” She pointed out that initial pulmonary rehabilitation trials in COPD included an intervention (pulmonary rehabilitation) and a control (standard medical care) arm.

The study aims were to compare the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation with real-world data between IPF and COPD with respect to magnitude of effect and survival. The authors’ hypothesis was that IPF patients would have a blunted response to pulmonary rehabilitation with reduced completion rates, compared with a matched COPD group, and with increased mortality.
 

Study details

Investigators use propensity score matching of 163 IPF patients with a control group of 163 patients with COPD referred to pulmonary rehabilitation. Completion rates, responses, and survival status were recorded for 1-year following pulmonary rehabilitation discharge. The 8-week outpatient program was composed of two supervised exercise and education sessions with additional unsupervised home-based exercise each week.

While spirometry data, as expected, showed a higher proportion of IPF patients using supplemental oxygen, pulmonary rehabilitation completion rates were similar for both groups (IPF, 69%; COPD, 63%; P = .24) and there was no between group difference in the number of sessions attended (P = .39). Medical Research Council (muscle strength) (MRC), incremental shuttle walk test (ISW), and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire total score (CRQ-T) improved significantly in both groups, again with no significant difference between groups.

Over the study course, there was progressive, significant worsening of forced vital capacity percentage, predicted, prescription supplemental oxygen, resting peripheral oxygen saturation, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and pulmonary rehabilitation adherence across groups of responders (n = 63; 38%), nonresponders (n = 50; 31%) and noncompleters (n = 50; 31%). Among the IPF patients, 6 died before completing pulmonary rehabilitation, with 42 (27%) dying during follow-up.
 

Benefits of rehabilitation

Multivariable analyses showed that noncompletion and nonresponse were associated with significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality at 1-year. Also, time to all-cause mortality was shorter (P = .001) for noncompleters and nonresponders, compared with completers. A trend toward higher completion rates in the IPF group, compared with the COPD group, may be explained, the researchers explained, by fewer hospitalizations over the prior 12 months in the IPF group.

“Although many programs are designed for people with COPD,” Dr. Nolan and colleagues concluded, “our study demonstrates that people with IPF have similar clinical benefits and completion rates to those with COPD. These data reinforce the importance of referral to and engagement in pulmonary rehabilitation amongst the IPF population.”

These findings, Dr. Nolan emphasized, emerged from a single center, and validation in other settings is needed.

This study was funded by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (2014-07-089) and a Medical Research Council New Investigator Research Grant (98576).

The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

The use of race/ethnicity in medicine to explain and interpret pulmonary function test (PFT) differences between individuals may contribute to biased medical care and research. Furthermore, it may perpetuate health disparities and structural racism, according to a study published in the journal CHEST®.

Current practices of PFT measurement and interpretation, are imperfect in their ability to accurately describe the relationship between function and health outcomes, according to Nirav R. Bhakta, MD, University of California,San Francisco, and colleagues.

The authors summarized arguments against using race-specific equations, while voicing genuine concerns about removing race from PFT interpretations, and described knowledge gaps and critical questions needing to be addressed for remediation of health disparities.

“Leaving out the perspectives of practicing pulmonologists and physiologists has global relevance for increasingly multicultural communities in which the range of values that represent normal lung function is uncertain,” Dr. Bhakta said in an interview.
 

A lesson in history

Tracing the history of spirometry, the authors stated that observations about vital lung capacity showing differences attributable to height, age, sex, and occupation (e.g., typesetter vs. firefighter) were then extended to include social classes and ultimately race. Whites showed greater average vital capacity for the same sex, height, and age than non-Whites.

While some investigators pointed to environmental sources (such as early life nutrition, respiratory illness, air pollution, exercise, and altitude), research into their mechanisms and magnitudes of effect was not pursued, but rather “a narrative of innate differences took hold,” Dr. Bhakta and colleagues reported.

That sort of narrative risks comparison with those used to uphold slavery and structural racism in the past. More recently, such a narrative was used to deny disability claims of Welsh versus English White miners, and was expanded to interpret algorithms designed to predict expected lung function.
 

Use of standing height questioned

The current practice of using normalized standard height for lung function comparisons misses racial and ethnic differences in the proportion of sitting height to standing height shown in multiple studies, the authors stated. These comparisons may ignore effects on standing height of early-life nutrition, genetics, lung-specific factors such as respiratory infections and exposures to indoor and outdoor pollution, physical activity, and high altitude. Using sitting height instead of standing height reduces lung volume differences up to 50% between White and Black populations, they noted, and socioeconomic variables, such as poverty and immigration status, accounted further for the differences seen. Population differences disappeared by as much as 90% when chest measurements used to estimate surface area or volume were more finely detailed.

The researchers warned, however, that, “because current clinical and policy algorithms rely so heavily on the comparison of an individual’s observed lung function to that which is expected for similar people without typical respiratory disease, an abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity, if not paired with education and a reform of existing algorithms and policies, is also expected to have risks on average to groups of non-White individuals.”

That could lead to potential challenges for some groups ranging from the ability to obtain employment in certain occupations, to being considered for potentially curative lung resections, or having access to home assisted ventilation and rehabilitation programs. “An abrupt change to not using race/ethnicity and taking a society’s overall average as the reference range also has the potential to lead to delayed care, denial of disability benefits, and higher life insurance premiums to White individuals.”
 

Evidence base is limited

“Although evidence demonstrates differences in lung function between racial/ethnic groups, the premise that dividing lung function interpretation up by racial/ethnic background is helpful in the clinical setting is not a proven one.” The authors cited some evidence that lung function interpretation without consideration of race/ethnicity has superior prognostic ability. In addition, research has shown only a weak relationship between lung function and work ability, according to the authors. More appropriate ways of assessing expected lung function for an individual in the absence of a diagnoses are under study.

Offering an alternative

As an alternative to race, Dr. Bhakta and colleagues proposed using a range of values that include individuals across many global populations while still adjusting for sex, age, and height. The resultant value would represent a diverse population average and widen the limits of normal that can be expected in otherwise-healthy people.

The approach would include PFTs with other factors for clinical decision-making, but would allow clinicians and patients to appreciate the limitations of interpretation based on comparison to reference values. However, such an approach may miss pathophysiologically reduced lung function in some individuals, in which case lifesaving therapies, such as chemotherapy, lung cancer resection, and bone marrow transplantation could be withheld. In other instances the consequence would be overtesting and diagnosis, they acknowledged.

The authors further discussed general concerns about the use of race in interpretation of PFTs, addressing limits/considerations as well as knowledge and practice gaps.

For example, one particular concern involves the fact that race does not capture acculturation and mixed ancestry. The limit/consideration is the need to discover mechanisms for differences and to suggest societal interventions, and the knowledge gap pertains to ignorance regarding mechanisms leading to differences in lung function.

For the concern that race is not a proxy for an individual’s genetics, the limit/consideration is that race captures only some genetics and the gap is the need for better genetic information. As an antidote to over reliance on lung function thresholds (without supporting data), they urged outcomes-based standards rather than comparisons with reference populations.
 

New thinking needed

Dr. Bhakta and colleagues pointed out that the forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratios important for diagnosis of obstructive lung disease are similar between racial/ethnic categories, underscoring the need for education about limitations of thresholds and reference values with regard to race, particularly as they are used to detect mild disease.

Ignoring race, on the other hand, can lead to unnecessary testing and treatment (with concomitant side effects), and anxiety.

“Reporting through race-based algorithms in the PFT laboratory risks portraying racial disparities as innate and immutable. By anchoring on the improved prediction of lung function from racial/ethnic-specific reference equations, we miss how the significant residual variation still leaves much uncertainty about the expected value for an individual,” the authors concluded. “Given their origin and historical and current use in society, these racial/ethnic labels are better used to identify the effects of structural racism on respiratory health in research and ensure adequate representation in research, rather than in clinical algorithms.”

One of the authors is a speaker for MGC Diagnostics. The others indicated that they had no relevant disclosures.

The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.

The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.

The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.

The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement

“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”

Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.

“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”

The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.

The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.

Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.

The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.

The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.

“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.

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

The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.

The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.

The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.

The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement

“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”

Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.

“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”

The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.

The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.

Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.

The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.

The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.

“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.

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

The Biden administration on Nov. 4 unveiled its rule to require most of the country’s larger employers to mandate workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, but set a Jan. 4 deadline, avoiding the busy holiday season.

The White House also shifted the time lines for earlier mandates applying to federal workers and contractors to Jan. 4. And the same deadline applies to a new separate rule for health care workers.

The new rules are meant to preempt “any inconsistent state or local laws,” including bans and limits on employers’ authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing, the White House said in a statement.

The rule on employers from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will apply to organizations with 100 or more employees. These employers will need to make sure each worker is fully vaccinated or tests for COVID-19 on at least a weekly basis. The OSHA rule will also require that employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and ensure that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace. This rule will cover 84 million employees. The OSHA rule will not apply to workplaces covered by either the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule or the federal contractor vaccination requirement

“The virus will not go away by itself, or because we wish it away: We have to act,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “Vaccination is the single best pathway out of this pandemic.”

Mandates were not the preferred route to managing the pandemic, he said.

“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” he said. “So I instituted requirements – and they are working.”

The White House said 70% percent of U.S. adults are now fully vaccinated – up from less than 1% when Mr. Biden took office in January.

The CMS vaccine rule is meant to cover more than 17 million workers and about 76,000 medical care sites, including hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, nursing homes, dialysis facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care facilities. The rule will apply to employees whether their positions involve patient care or not.

Unlike the OSHA mandate, the one for health care workers will not offer the option of frequent COVID-19 testing instead of vaccination. There is a “higher bar” for health care workers, given their role in treating patients, so the mandate allows only for vaccination or limited exemptions, a senior administration official said on Nov. 3 during a call with reporters.

The CMS rule includes a “range of remedies,” including penalties and denial of payment for health care facilities that fail to meet the vaccine mandate. CMS could theoretically cut off hospitals and other medical organizations for failure to comply, but that would be a “last resort,” a senior administration official said. CMS will instead work with health care facilities to help them comply with the federal rule on vaccination of medical workers.

The new CMS rules apply only to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified centers and organizations. The rule does not directly apply to other health care entities, such as doctor’s offices, that are not regulated by CMS.

“Most states have separate licensing requirements for health care staff and health care providers that would be applicable to physician office staff and other staff in small health care entities that are not subject to vaccination requirements under this IFC,” CMS said in the rule.

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

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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

For patients with moderate to severe asthma, blockade with itepekimab, a new human IgG4P monoclonal antibody against the upstream alarmin interleukin-33, led to a reduction in events that indicate loss of asthma control. Treatment with itepekimab also led to an improvement in lung function compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 trial.

However, findings for a subgroup of patients treated with itepekimab in combination with dupilumab, an anti–interleukin-4–receptor alpha subunit and IL-13 monoclonal antibody, were not favorable in comparison with placebo, noted M. E. Wechsler, MD, and colleagues in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New target

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of available biologic therapies targeting IgE, interleukin-4, interleukin-13, and interleukin-5 for treating moderate to severe type 2 asthma, many patients with type 2 or non–type 2 asthma continue to have symptoms, exacerbations, and reduced lung function. New therapies targeting alternative pathophysiologic pathways are needed.

Genomewide studies show that type 2 and non–type 2 inflammation that contributes to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are genetically associated with interleukin-33. This inflammation occurs when interleukin-33 binds to its cognate receptor (ST2) and engages the coreceptor interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein to initiate downstream signaling, activating cells of both the innate and adaptive immune systems.
 

Study details

The investigators conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group (four groups), proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interleukin-33 targeting itepekimab in comparison with placebo for adults with moderate to severe asthma. Dupilumab, which was the active comparator, was administered in combination with itepekimab to evaluate potential additive effects. Dupilumab’s efficacy in this population had been demonstrated previously.

All 296 patients (mean age, 49.1 years; 64% women) were receiving inhaled glucocorticoids plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous itepekimab (300 mg), itepekimab plus dupilumab (both at 300 mg; combination therapy), dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. LABAs were discontinued at week 4, and inhaled glucocorticoids were tapered over weeks 6 through 9. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of an event indicating the loss of asthma control.
 

Promising results

Primary endpoint analysis at 12 weeks revealed a lower rate of asthma control–loss events in the itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy groups but not in the combination group, compared with patients who received placebo. Events occurred in 22% of patients in the itepekimab group, in 27% of those in the combination group, in 19% of the dupilumab group, and in 41% of the placebo group. The odds ratios for comparisons with placebo were 0.42 for the itepekimab group (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.88; P = .02); 0.33 in the dupilumab group (95% CI, 0.15-.70); and 0.52 in the combination group (95% CI, 0.26-1.06; P = .07) .

Following a similar pattern, forced expiratory volume in 1 second before use of a bronchodilator increased with both monotherapies but not with the combination or placebo. Although the trial was not powered to determine differences between itepekimab and dupilumab, the effects of dupilumab therapy were generally greater than those observed with itepekimab, especially for patients with type 2 asthma.

Also, asthma control and quality of life were improved with itepekimab and dupilumab monotherapy in comparison with placebo. There were also greater reductions in the mean blood eosinophil count.

The authors urge further research into the complexities of asthma physiology and encourage researchers to look for predictive biomarkers of anti–interleukin-33 blockade response. They conclude, “In this trial, we found that itepekimab monotherapy led to a lower incidence of events indicating loss of asthma control and to improved lung function, findings that are consistent with a role for interleukin-33 in the pathogenesis of exacerbations and airflow limitation in asthma.”
 

Examining results

In an accompanying editorial, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, ask why itepekimab and dupilumab, a combination based on a sound scientific rationale, failed. As monotherapies, both itepekimab and dupilumab are roughly similar in reducing asthma events and improving lung function; thus, is unlikely that inadequate dosing led to the failure of itepekimab.

Interleukin-33 is an attractive target because the cells it promotes secrete cytokines that induce asthma’s pathognomonic features, and biologic agents that target those cytokines (interleukin-5/-5R/-4/-13 axes) have been highly effective. They do not, however, prevent exacerbations after treatment.

Alternative pathways within or outside that paradigm are operant, and other epithelial alarmins, such as interleukin-25 and thymic stromal lymphopoietin, promote type 2 inflammation, Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster state.

“Combination therapy with itepekimab and dupilumab may have failed because these pathways bypass interleukin-33,” they write. Also, preexisting ILC2 and TH2 cells may have residual capacity to release mediators. The short-term trial design, the editorialists write, may have contributed to the failure of the itepekimab/dupilumab combination; interleukin-33 may be appropriate as a target in a longer-term exacerbation-type trial “in which epithelial infection and other relevant stimuli instigate exacerbated disease. Combination therapy may be capable of lowering exacerbations rather than preventing loss of control in chronic disease.

“Clinical translation of basic science in asthma remains a challenge to be pursued. ... It is imperative to harness scientific insights from translational studies that frustrate our hopeful expectations – so that something can also be gained,” they conclude.
 

The role of interleukin-33

“Our study of itepekimab provides valuable insight into pathophysiology of severe asthma,” said Dr. Wechsler, professor of medicine at the NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, Denver, in an interview. “As blocking IL-33 reduced asthma worsening and improved lung function compared to placebo, it suggests that IL-33 plays an important role in asthma pathophysiology and may be a valuable target for a subset of patients with severe asthma,” he stated.

“Since the effect of itepekimab is comparable to that of dupilumab, it is suggested that patients may benefit from blockade of this pathway, but what remains to be seen is identifying which patients are more likely to respond better to one therapy vs. another. The future of blocking IL-33 remains exciting, and studies are being planned to evaluate its efficacy in airways diseases, including COPD,” he concluded.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Placebo treatment was found to be superior to treatment with risankizumab with respect to time to first asthma worsening and annualized rate of asthma worsening for adults with severe persistent asthma in a phase 2a clinical trial.

The randomized, double-blind, 24-week, parallel group, multicenter trial assessed risankizumab efficacy and safety in 214 adults with severe persistent asthma. The results were reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Risankizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody directed against subunit p19 of interleukin-23. It is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

Interleukin-23 has been implicated in airway inflammation mediated by type 2 and type 17 cytokines. Noting that inhibition of interleukin-23 is effective in the treatment of psoriasis and Crohn’s disease, Christopher E. Brightling, MD, and colleagues investigated whether targeting interleukin-23 in asthma patients would improve disease control and reduce airway inflammation.
 

Study details

Patients received either 90 mg of risankizumab (subcutaneous) (n = 105) or placebo (n = 109) once every 4 weeks. Time to first asthma worsening was the primary endpoint. Worsening was defined as decline from baseline on 2 or more consecutive days. Deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 30% in the morning peak expiratory flow or an increase from baseline of at least 50% in rescue medication puffs over 24 hours. In addition, a severe asthma exacerbation or an increase of 0.75 or more points on the five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating less control) were considered to be evidence of worsening. Annualized rate of asthma worsening was a secondary endpoint.

The mean age of the patients was 53 years; 66.5% of the patients were women.
 

Disappointing results

In the risankizumab group, median time to first asthma worsening was 40 days, significantly worse than the 86 days reported for the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-2.04; P = .03). For annualized asthma worsening, the rate ratio for the comparison of risankizumab with placebo was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.12-1.99).

Among key secondary endpoints, the adjusted mean change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ from baseline to week 24 was –0.05 L in the risankizumab group and –0.01 L in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in FEV₁ after bronchodilator use from baseline to week 24 was –0.10 L in the risankizumab group and –0.03 L in the placebo group. Sputum transcriptomic pathway analysis showed that genes involved in the activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T cells and the activation of type 1 helper T and type 17 helper T transcription factors were downregulated by risankizumab. Rates of adverse events were similar among patients receiving risankizumab and those taking placebo.
 

Further trials unwarranted

“The findings not only failed to show benefit for any outcome but also showed asthma worsening occurred earlier and more frequently in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo,” Dr. Brightling, professor in the department of respiratory sciences at University of Leicester, England, said in an interview. “This study does not support any further trials for anti-IL23 in asthma.” Dr. Brightling speculated on the cause of accelerated asthma worsening with risankizumab.

“We found that the gene expression of key molecules involved in our response to infection was decreased in airway samples in those treated with risankizumab versus placebo. It is possible that the increased asthma worsening following risankizumab was related to this suppression of antimicrobial immunity,” he said.

He noted that risankizumab did not affect type-2/eosinophilic inflammation, which is the target for current asthma biologics, or gene expression of T2 molecules. “That suggests that this type of inflammation would have continued in the asthma patients during the trial irrespective of receiving risankizumab or placebo,” he said.
 

Caution with investigating biologicals

Downstream biologic responses to risankizumab were detectable, Philip G. Bardin, PhD, and Paul S. Foster, DSc, observed in an accompanying editorial, but there was no discernible clinical benefit, implying attenuation of apposite pathways. Current understanding of the basic science relevant to asthma, they stated, offers clues to the failure of risankizumab to benefit these patients with severe asthma. Although targeting the interleukin-23 and Th17 axis with risankizumab can reduce development of pathogenic Th17 cells, interleukin-23 is not critical for the development of Th17 cells.

“In contrast to pathways operated by interleukin-5 and interleukin-4R alpha, interleukin-23 has only a limited auxiliary role in amplifying type 2 responses. It is possible that the trial conducted by Brightling and colleagues failed because signaling through alternative disease pathways nullified inhibition of inter-leukin-23,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Bardin and Dr. Foster further speculate that because interleukin-23 is vital for effective mucosal immunity, risankizumab may have conferred to patients a predisposition to more severe or more frequent virus-induced exacerbations. They stated that generally, however, the reasons for risankizumab’s poorer outcomes compared to placebo are unclear. “Overall, these findings support a cautious approach in future research investigating biologic therapies in asthma,” they concluded.

The clinical trial was sponsored and funded by BI/AbbVie.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Antithrombotic therapy in clinically stable, nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients does not offer protection against adverse cardiovascular or pulmonary events, new randomized clinical trial results suggest.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Antithrombotic therapy has proven useful in acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19, but in this study, treatment with aspirin or apixaban (Eliquis) did not reduce the rate of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary causes in patients ill with COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized.

“Among symptomatic, clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome,” the authors conclude. “However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of a primary event rate lower than anticipated.”

The study, which was led by Jean M. Connors, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online October 11 in JAMA.

The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was a randomized, adaptive, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that sought to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7,000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.

The trial was conducted at 52 sites in the U.S. between Sept. 2020 and June 2021, with final follow-up this past August 5, and involved minimal face-to-face interactions with study participants.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164 patients), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days.

The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause.

The trial was terminated early this past June by the independent data monitoring committee because of lower than anticipated event rates. At the time, just 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been enrolled.

The median age of the study participants was 54 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 46-59); 59% were women.

The median time from diagnosis to randomization was 7 days, and the median time from randomization to initiation of study medications was 3 days.

The trial’s primary efficacy and safety analyses were restricted to patients who received at least one dose of trial medication, for a final number of 558 patients.

Among these patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5 mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group.

The researchers found that the absolute risk reductions compared with placebo for the primary outcome were 0.0% (95% confidence interval not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

No major bleeding events were reported.

The absolute risk differences compared with placebo for clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events were 2% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%) in the aspirin group, 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%) in the prophylactic-dose apixaban group, and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) in the therapeutic-dose apixaban group.

Safety and efficacy results were similar in all randomly assigned patients.

The researchers speculated that a combination of two demographic shifts over time may have led to the lower than anticipated rate of events in ACTIV-4B.

“First, the threshold for hospital admission has markedly declined since the beginning of the pandemic, such that hospitalization is no longer limited almost exclusively to those with severe pulmonary distress likely to require mechanical ventilation,” they write. “As a result, the severity of illness among individuals with COVID-19 and destined for outpatient care has declined.”

“Second, at least within the U.S., where the trial was conducted, individuals currently being infected with SARS-CoV-2 tend to be younger and have fewer comorbidities when compared with individuals with incident infection at the onset of the pandemic,” they add.

Further, COVID-19 testing was quite limited early in the pandemic, they note, “and it is possible that the anticipated event rates based on data from registries available at that time were overestimated because the denominator (that is, the number of infected individuals overall) was essentially unknown.”
 

Robust evidence

“The ACTIV-4B trial is the first randomized trial to generate robust evidence about the effects of antithrombotic therapy in outpatients with COVID-19,” Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, told this news organization.

“It should be noted that this was a well-designed trial with low risk of bias. On the other hand, the main limitation is the low number of events and, consequently, the limited statistical power,” said Dr. Berwanger, who wrote an accompanying editorial.

The ACTIV-4B trial has immediate implications for clinical practice, he added.

“In this sense, considering the neutral results for major cardiopulmonary outcomes, the use of aspirin or apixaban for the management of outpatients with COVID-19 should not be recommended.”

ACTIV-4B also provides useful information for the steering committees of other ongoing trials of antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19 who are not hospitalized, Dr. Berwanger added.

“In this sense, probably issues like statistical power, outcome choices, recruitment feasibility, and even futility would need to be revisited. And finally, lessons learned from the implementation of an innovative, pragmatic, and decentralized trial design represent an important legacy for future trials in cardiovascular diseases and other common conditions,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Connors reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Abbott, Alnylam, Takeda, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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