News From CHEST Physician®

The CHEST Foundation raises awareness for the most common interstitial lung disease.

On August 27, the CHEST Foundation and the Feldman Family Foundation will be hosting the 9th annual Irv Feldman Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament & Casino Night fundraiser supporting patient access and the provision of better quality of life for patients battling the interstitial lung disease – pulmonary fibrosis.

“My dad, Irv, had pulmonary fibrosis and deeply loved to play poker. It was always a family activity, and it continued through when he got sick. We played at his kitchen table when he couldn’t leave the house, and we even brought cards and chips to his hospital and rehab rooms,” said Mitch Feldman, President of the Feldman Family Foundation and member of the CHEST Foundation Board of Trustees. “During these few hours of poker play, he all but forgot about his illness and showed virtually no symptoms of the disease. In his honor, we created an event where people would come together to have fun playing poker while raising money for the disease [that] so deeply impacted our family.”

Through years of hosting the event, the Feldman family and the CHEST Foundation secured funding to develop a pulmonary fibrosis patient education resource hub that serves as a resource for those newly diagnosed and living with this disease. The Feldman Family and the CHEST Foundation continue to raise funds to support both early diagnosis and closing the gap between diagnosis and beginning treatment.
 

Partnering to address gaps

Affecting around 400,000 people in the United States, ILDs are frequently misdiagnosed as more common lung diseases. Some studies show that reaching an appropriate diagnosis for rarer lung diseases can take upwards of several years.

To begin addressing the issue of delays in diagnosis, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Three Lakes Foundation are collaborating on a multiphase educational initiative aiming to reduce the time it takes to identify interstitial lung diseases like pulmonary fibrosis.

The initiative is called “Bridging Specialties^TM: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients” to highlight the collaboration of pulmonary and primary care medicine. A steering committee of medical experts – including pulmonologists, primary care physicians, and a nursing professional – will work to create materials that will aid in identifying and diagnosing complex lung diseases quicker.

“By having experts from both pulmonary and primary care medicine as members of the steering committee, we are bringing together the pieces of the puzzle that is a complex diagnosis,” said Bridging Specialties steering committee member and family medicine physician, Dr. William Lago. “Patients first see their family medicine or primary care clinicians and, all too often, the most complex lung diseases present in ways that are indistinguishable from more common conditions like asthma and COPD. Bringing together experts in both fields will yield the best results in creating a path to diagnosis.”
 

To learn more about the Bridging Specialties^TM: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients initiative and to sign up for updates, visit https://tinyurl.com/2p92ha6r.

For ticket and donation information to the Irv Feldman Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament & Casino Night, visit the CHEST Foundation website at foundation.chestnet.org.

The CHEST Foundation raises awareness for the most common interstitial lung disease.

On August 27, the CHEST Foundation and the Feldman Family Foundation will be hosting the 9th annual Irv Feldman Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament & Casino Night fundraiser supporting patient access and the provision of better quality of life for patients battling the interstitial lung disease – pulmonary fibrosis.

“My dad, Irv, had pulmonary fibrosis and deeply loved to play poker. It was always a family activity, and it continued through when he got sick. We played at his kitchen table when he couldn’t leave the house, and we even brought cards and chips to his hospital and rehab rooms,” said Mitch Feldman, President of the Feldman Family Foundation and member of the CHEST Foundation Board of Trustees. “During these few hours of poker play, he all but forgot about his illness and showed virtually no symptoms of the disease. In his honor, we created an event where people would come together to have fun playing poker while raising money for the disease [that] so deeply impacted our family.”

Through years of hosting the event, the Feldman family and the CHEST Foundation secured funding to develop a pulmonary fibrosis patient education resource hub that serves as a resource for those newly diagnosed and living with this disease. The Feldman Family and the CHEST Foundation continue to raise funds to support both early diagnosis and closing the gap between diagnosis and beginning treatment.
 

Partnering to address gaps

Affecting around 400,000 people in the United States, ILDs are frequently misdiagnosed as more common lung diseases. Some studies show that reaching an appropriate diagnosis for rarer lung diseases can take upwards of several years.

To begin addressing the issue of delays in diagnosis, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Three Lakes Foundation are collaborating on a multiphase educational initiative aiming to reduce the time it takes to identify interstitial lung diseases like pulmonary fibrosis.

The initiative is called “Bridging Specialties^TM: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients” to highlight the collaboration of pulmonary and primary care medicine. A steering committee of medical experts – including pulmonologists, primary care physicians, and a nursing professional – will work to create materials that will aid in identifying and diagnosing complex lung diseases quicker.

“By having experts from both pulmonary and primary care medicine as members of the steering committee, we are bringing together the pieces of the puzzle that is a complex diagnosis,” said Bridging Specialties steering committee member and family medicine physician, Dr. William Lago. “Patients first see their family medicine or primary care clinicians and, all too often, the most complex lung diseases present in ways that are indistinguishable from more common conditions like asthma and COPD. Bringing together experts in both fields will yield the best results in creating a path to diagnosis.”
 

To learn more about the Bridging Specialties^TM: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients initiative and to sign up for updates, visit https://tinyurl.com/2p92ha6r.

For ticket and donation information to the Irv Feldman Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament & Casino Night, visit the CHEST Foundation website at foundation.chestnet.org.

The CHEST Foundation raises awareness for the most common interstitial lung disease.

On August 27, the CHEST Foundation and the Feldman Family Foundation will be hosting the 9th annual Irv Feldman Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament & Casino Night fundraiser supporting patient access and the provision of better quality of life for patients battling the interstitial lung disease – pulmonary fibrosis.

“My dad, Irv, had pulmonary fibrosis and deeply loved to play poker. It was always a family activity, and it continued through when he got sick. We played at his kitchen table when he couldn’t leave the house, and we even brought cards and chips to his hospital and rehab rooms,” said Mitch Feldman, President of the Feldman Family Foundation and member of the CHEST Foundation Board of Trustees. “During these few hours of poker play, he all but forgot about his illness and showed virtually no symptoms of the disease. In his honor, we created an event where people would come together to have fun playing poker while raising money for the disease [that] so deeply impacted our family.”

Through years of hosting the event, the Feldman family and the CHEST Foundation secured funding to develop a pulmonary fibrosis patient education resource hub that serves as a resource for those newly diagnosed and living with this disease. The Feldman Family and the CHEST Foundation continue to raise funds to support both early diagnosis and closing the gap between diagnosis and beginning treatment.
 

Partnering to address gaps

Affecting around 400,000 people in the United States, ILDs are frequently misdiagnosed as more common lung diseases. Some studies show that reaching an appropriate diagnosis for rarer lung diseases can take upwards of several years.

To begin addressing the issue of delays in diagnosis, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Three Lakes Foundation are collaborating on a multiphase educational initiative aiming to reduce the time it takes to identify interstitial lung diseases like pulmonary fibrosis.

The initiative is called “Bridging Specialties^TM: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients” to highlight the collaboration of pulmonary and primary care medicine. A steering committee of medical experts – including pulmonologists, primary care physicians, and a nursing professional – will work to create materials that will aid in identifying and diagnosing complex lung diseases quicker.

“By having experts from both pulmonary and primary care medicine as members of the steering committee, we are bringing together the pieces of the puzzle that is a complex diagnosis,” said Bridging Specialties steering committee member and family medicine physician, Dr. William Lago. “Patients first see their family medicine or primary care clinicians and, all too often, the most complex lung diseases present in ways that are indistinguishable from more common conditions like asthma and COPD. Bringing together experts in both fields will yield the best results in creating a path to diagnosis.”
 

To learn more about the Bridging Specialties^TM: Timely Diagnosis for ILD Patients initiative and to sign up for updates, visit https://tinyurl.com/2p92ha6r.

For ticket and donation information to the Irv Feldman Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament & Casino Night, visit the CHEST Foundation website at foundation.chestnet.org.

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Is tissue still an issue?

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic fibrosing disorder of unclear etiology. Per ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines, diagnosis of IPF requires exclusion of known causes of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and either the presence of a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) or probable UIP pattern on HRCT scan or specific combinations of HRCT scan and histopathologic patterns. Surgical lung biopsy (SLB) is the gold standard for histopathologic diagnosis.

The recent update (Raghu, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[9]:1084-92) made a conditional recommendation for transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) as an acceptable alternative to SLB in patients with undetermined ILD. Systematic analysis revealed a diagnostic yield of 79% (85% when ≥ 3 sites were sampled) by TBLC compared with 90% on SLB. With consideration of this diagnostic yield vs the risk of pneumothorax, severe bleeding, and procedural mortality, TBLC is an attractive tool compared with SLB. Overall, the utility of TBLC remains limited to experienced centers due to dependence on proceduralist and pathologist skills for optimal success and more data are awaited.

No recommendation was made for or against the use of genomic classifiers (GC) for the diagnosis of UIP in patients with undetermined ILD undergoing transbronchial biopsy. Although, meta-analysis revealed a specificity of 92%, this may be driven by patient enrichment with a high probability for UIP population. GC has the potential to reduce SLB-associated risks and provide diagnostic information for multidisciplinary discussion in certain scenarios. However, limitations arise from the inability to distinguish specific ILD subtype associated with the UIP pattern; further improvement in sensitivity and understanding of downstream consequences of false-negative results is necessary.

Kevin Dsouza, MD
Fellow-in-Training

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Is tissue still an issue?

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic fibrosing disorder of unclear etiology. Per ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines, diagnosis of IPF requires exclusion of known causes of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and either the presence of a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) or probable UIP pattern on HRCT scan or specific combinations of HRCT scan and histopathologic patterns. Surgical lung biopsy (SLB) is the gold standard for histopathologic diagnosis.

The recent update (Raghu, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[9]:1084-92) made a conditional recommendation for transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) as an acceptable alternative to SLB in patients with undetermined ILD. Systematic analysis revealed a diagnostic yield of 79% (85% when ≥ 3 sites were sampled) by TBLC compared with 90% on SLB. With consideration of this diagnostic yield vs the risk of pneumothorax, severe bleeding, and procedural mortality, TBLC is an attractive tool compared with SLB. Overall, the utility of TBLC remains limited to experienced centers due to dependence on proceduralist and pathologist skills for optimal success and more data are awaited.

No recommendation was made for or against the use of genomic classifiers (GC) for the diagnosis of UIP in patients with undetermined ILD undergoing transbronchial biopsy. Although, meta-analysis revealed a specificity of 92%, this may be driven by patient enrichment with a high probability for UIP population. GC has the potential to reduce SLB-associated risks and provide diagnostic information for multidisciplinary discussion in certain scenarios. However, limitations arise from the inability to distinguish specific ILD subtype associated with the UIP pattern; further improvement in sensitivity and understanding of downstream consequences of false-negative results is necessary.

Kevin Dsouza, MD
Fellow-in-Training

Interstitial Lung Disease Section

Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Is tissue still an issue?

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic fibrosing disorder of unclear etiology. Per ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines, diagnosis of IPF requires exclusion of known causes of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and either the presence of a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) or probable UIP pattern on HRCT scan or specific combinations of HRCT scan and histopathologic patterns. Surgical lung biopsy (SLB) is the gold standard for histopathologic diagnosis.

The recent update (Raghu, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[9]:1084-92) made a conditional recommendation for transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) as an acceptable alternative to SLB in patients with undetermined ILD. Systematic analysis revealed a diagnostic yield of 79% (85% when ≥ 3 sites were sampled) by TBLC compared with 90% on SLB. With consideration of this diagnostic yield vs the risk of pneumothorax, severe bleeding, and procedural mortality, TBLC is an attractive tool compared with SLB. Overall, the utility of TBLC remains limited to experienced centers due to dependence on proceduralist and pathologist skills for optimal success and more data are awaited.

No recommendation was made for or against the use of genomic classifiers (GC) for the diagnosis of UIP in patients with undetermined ILD undergoing transbronchial biopsy. Although, meta-analysis revealed a specificity of 92%, this may be driven by patient enrichment with a high probability for UIP population. GC has the potential to reduce SLB-associated risks and provide diagnostic information for multidisciplinary discussion in certain scenarios. However, limitations arise from the inability to distinguish specific ILD subtype associated with the UIP pattern; further improvement in sensitivity and understanding of downstream consequences of false-negative results is necessary.

Kevin Dsouza, MD
Fellow-in-Training

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

Advanced critical care echocardiography: A noninvasive tool for hemodynamic assessment in critically ill patients

Hemodynamic assessments in critically ill patients are important to guide accurate management; however, traditional invasive methods of measuring cardiac output have significant limitations, including risks of infection and bleeding. Advanced critical care echocardiography (ACCE) is a feasible alternative, which can be used to provide accurate hemodynamic assessment at the point of care. ACCE can provide a multitude of hemodynamic measurements from cardiac output (CO) to right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and left atrial pressure (LAP). Combinations of left ventricular function parameters, along with estimation of filling pressures, can help distinguish between types of shock. Schmidt and colleagues (Sci Rep. 2022;12[1]:7187) demonstrated that measurement of these indices in the majority of patients helped elucidate the cause for hemodynamic compromise. They found presence of a cardiac index (CI) < 2.5/min.m² was associated with a doubling of ICU mortality as compared with predictions based on severity of illness scores in otherwise hemodynamically stable patients. Hollenberg and colleagues (Am J Cardiol. 2021;153:135-39) demonstrated the feasibility of a simpler stratification using the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and CI in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with shock, where low CI despite having a preserved LVEF was associated with worse outcomes.

Quick, reliable data are an intensivist’s friend. Utilizing ACCE at the bedside adds another tool in our arsenal to provide real-time hemodynamic data that can be used to manage patients in the ICU. ACCE also allows repeated measurements to determine changes based on therapeutic interventions initiated.

In recognition of the importance of ACCE as a tool for intensivists, the National Board of Echocardiography (NBE) now offers a pathway toward board certification with the Examination of Special Competence in Critical Care Echocardiography (CCEeXAM). CHEST continues to offer cutting-edge courses in ACCE, as well as a board review course for learners interested in sitting for the CCEeXAM.

Amik Sodhi, MD, FCCP
Gul Zaidi, MD, FCCP

Members-at-Large

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

Advanced critical care echocardiography: A noninvasive tool for hemodynamic assessment in critically ill patients

Hemodynamic assessments in critically ill patients are important to guide accurate management; however, traditional invasive methods of measuring cardiac output have significant limitations, including risks of infection and bleeding. Advanced critical care echocardiography (ACCE) is a feasible alternative, which can be used to provide accurate hemodynamic assessment at the point of care. ACCE can provide a multitude of hemodynamic measurements from cardiac output (CO) to right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and left atrial pressure (LAP). Combinations of left ventricular function parameters, along with estimation of filling pressures, can help distinguish between types of shock. Schmidt and colleagues (Sci Rep. 2022;12[1]:7187) demonstrated that measurement of these indices in the majority of patients helped elucidate the cause for hemodynamic compromise. They found presence of a cardiac index (CI) < 2.5/min.m² was associated with a doubling of ICU mortality as compared with predictions based on severity of illness scores in otherwise hemodynamically stable patients. Hollenberg and colleagues (Am J Cardiol. 2021;153:135-39) demonstrated the feasibility of a simpler stratification using the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and CI in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with shock, where low CI despite having a preserved LVEF was associated with worse outcomes.

Quick, reliable data are an intensivist’s friend. Utilizing ACCE at the bedside adds another tool in our arsenal to provide real-time hemodynamic data that can be used to manage patients in the ICU. ACCE also allows repeated measurements to determine changes based on therapeutic interventions initiated.

In recognition of the importance of ACCE as a tool for intensivists, the National Board of Echocardiography (NBE) now offers a pathway toward board certification with the Examination of Special Competence in Critical Care Echocardiography (CCEeXAM). CHEST continues to offer cutting-edge courses in ACCE, as well as a board review course for learners interested in sitting for the CCEeXAM.

Amik Sodhi, MD, FCCP
Gul Zaidi, MD, FCCP

Members-at-Large

Ultrasound and Chest Imaging Section

Advanced critical care echocardiography: A noninvasive tool for hemodynamic assessment in critically ill patients

Hemodynamic assessments in critically ill patients are important to guide accurate management; however, traditional invasive methods of measuring cardiac output have significant limitations, including risks of infection and bleeding. Advanced critical care echocardiography (ACCE) is a feasible alternative, which can be used to provide accurate hemodynamic assessment at the point of care. ACCE can provide a multitude of hemodynamic measurements from cardiac output (CO) to right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and left atrial pressure (LAP). Combinations of left ventricular function parameters, along with estimation of filling pressures, can help distinguish between types of shock. Schmidt and colleagues (Sci Rep. 2022;12[1]:7187) demonstrated that measurement of these indices in the majority of patients helped elucidate the cause for hemodynamic compromise. They found presence of a cardiac index (CI) < 2.5/min.m² was associated with a doubling of ICU mortality as compared with predictions based on severity of illness scores in otherwise hemodynamically stable patients. Hollenberg and colleagues (Am J Cardiol. 2021;153:135-39) demonstrated the feasibility of a simpler stratification using the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and CI in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with shock, where low CI despite having a preserved LVEF was associated with worse outcomes.

Quick, reliable data are an intensivist’s friend. Utilizing ACCE at the bedside adds another tool in our arsenal to provide real-time hemodynamic data that can be used to manage patients in the ICU. ACCE also allows repeated measurements to determine changes based on therapeutic interventions initiated.

In recognition of the importance of ACCE as a tool for intensivists, the National Board of Echocardiography (NBE) now offers a pathway toward board certification with the Examination of Special Competence in Critical Care Echocardiography (CCEeXAM). CHEST continues to offer cutting-edge courses in ACCE, as well as a board review course for learners interested in sitting for the CCEeXAM.

Amik Sodhi, MD, FCCP
Gul Zaidi, MD, FCCP

Members-at-Large

Interventional Procedures Section

Mind the gap: Improving adherence to lung cancer screening follow-up

The gap in adherence rates between a disciplined clinical trial and the heterogenous patchwork of U.S. health care is hardly unusual, but as lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer both worldwide and in the United States, one such disparity bears closer scrutiny.

In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with the implementation of low dose CT scan screening with 95% adherence to CT scan follow-up within 15 months of initial screening imaging (Aberle, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365[5]:395-409). Unfortunately, estimates of real-world adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up fall to 51% even within an extended 18-month window (Hirsch, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16[10]:1329-32).

Recent studies compared adherence to LCS follow-up between centralized and decentralized screening programs. Centralized programs used dedicated program coordinators and a tracking system, while decentralized programs relied on primary care providers. Patients enrolled in a centralized program had a two-fold higher likelihood of adherence when compared with those screened in a decentralized program (Sakoda, et al. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4[4]:e218559). A subsequent study demonstrated adherence of 70% vs 41% among patients in centralized vs decentralized programs, respectively (Smith, et al. Chest. 2022;161[3]:818-25).

This gap is even more pronounced in majority-Black populations. Kunitomo and colleagues showed 33% lower odds of adherence to LCS follow-up compared with White patients (Kunitomo, et al. Chest. 2022;161[1]:266-75). Another study in a diverse, majority-Black patient population showed only 31% adherence to LCS follow-up at 1 year (Erkmen, et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2021;32[3]:291-8).

How could we close this gap? Centralized LCS programs show promise of increasing adherence to LCS follow-up. Heightened awareness of and targeted investment to mitigate racial inequities in LCS is imperative.

Jose De Cardenas MD
John Howe, MD

Members-at-Large

Interventional Procedures Section

Mind the gap: Improving adherence to lung cancer screening follow-up

The gap in adherence rates between a disciplined clinical trial and the heterogenous patchwork of U.S. health care is hardly unusual, but as lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer both worldwide and in the United States, one such disparity bears closer scrutiny.

In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with the implementation of low dose CT scan screening with 95% adherence to CT scan follow-up within 15 months of initial screening imaging (Aberle, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365[5]:395-409). Unfortunately, estimates of real-world adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up fall to 51% even within an extended 18-month window (Hirsch, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16[10]:1329-32).

Recent studies compared adherence to LCS follow-up between centralized and decentralized screening programs. Centralized programs used dedicated program coordinators and a tracking system, while decentralized programs relied on primary care providers. Patients enrolled in a centralized program had a two-fold higher likelihood of adherence when compared with those screened in a decentralized program (Sakoda, et al. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4[4]:e218559). A subsequent study demonstrated adherence of 70% vs 41% among patients in centralized vs decentralized programs, respectively (Smith, et al. Chest. 2022;161[3]:818-25).

This gap is even more pronounced in majority-Black populations. Kunitomo and colleagues showed 33% lower odds of adherence to LCS follow-up compared with White patients (Kunitomo, et al. Chest. 2022;161[1]:266-75). Another study in a diverse, majority-Black patient population showed only 31% adherence to LCS follow-up at 1 year (Erkmen, et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2021;32[3]:291-8).

How could we close this gap? Centralized LCS programs show promise of increasing adherence to LCS follow-up. Heightened awareness of and targeted investment to mitigate racial inequities in LCS is imperative.

Jose De Cardenas MD
John Howe, MD

Members-at-Large

Interventional Procedures Section

Mind the gap: Improving adherence to lung cancer screening follow-up

The gap in adherence rates between a disciplined clinical trial and the heterogenous patchwork of U.S. health care is hardly unusual, but as lung cancer remains the number one cancer killer both worldwide and in the United States, one such disparity bears closer scrutiny.

In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with the implementation of low dose CT scan screening with 95% adherence to CT scan follow-up within 15 months of initial screening imaging (Aberle, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365[5]:395-409). Unfortunately, estimates of real-world adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up fall to 51% even within an extended 18-month window (Hirsch, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019;16[10]:1329-32).

Recent studies compared adherence to LCS follow-up between centralized and decentralized screening programs. Centralized programs used dedicated program coordinators and a tracking system, while decentralized programs relied on primary care providers. Patients enrolled in a centralized program had a two-fold higher likelihood of adherence when compared with those screened in a decentralized program (Sakoda, et al. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4[4]:e218559). A subsequent study demonstrated adherence of 70% vs 41% among patients in centralized vs decentralized programs, respectively (Smith, et al. Chest. 2022;161[3]:818-25).

This gap is even more pronounced in majority-Black populations. Kunitomo and colleagues showed 33% lower odds of adherence to LCS follow-up compared with White patients (Kunitomo, et al. Chest. 2022;161[1]:266-75). Another study in a diverse, majority-Black patient population showed only 31% adherence to LCS follow-up at 1 year (Erkmen, et al. Cancer Causes Control. 2021;32[3]:291-8).

How could we close this gap? Centralized LCS programs show promise of increasing adherence to LCS follow-up. Heightened awareness of and targeted investment to mitigate racial inequities in LCS is imperative.

Jose De Cardenas MD
John Howe, MD

Members-at-Large

Home-based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Disease Section

Navigating the latest device supply chain challenge: Mechanical airway clearance

Airway clearance is integral for patients with respiratory muscle weakness and is divided into cough augmentation (proximal airways) and sputum mobilizing techniques (distal airways). Cough augmentation techniques provide lung volume recruitment on the insufflation phase, in addition to mobilization of secretions with augmentation of the peak expiratory flow rate to >160 L/min on the exhalation phase.

A mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) device (T70 Cough Assist - Phillips) is now on indefinite backorder. This creates a dangerous situation for our patients requiring cough augmentation for survival. Alternative options that provide both MI-E and high frequency oscillation include two systems (Synclara Cough System – Hill-rom and the Biwaze Cough System-ABM Respiratory Care).

The Synclara can only be obtained in a direct-to-patient model, contracting with individual respiratory therapists, outside of the standard durable medical equipment model. The final MI-E model option is the VOCSYN multifunctional ventilator (ventilator, cough assist, nebulizer, oxygen concentrator, suction). This multifunction ventilator has had variable acceptance with HCPCS code E0467. If the VOCSYN is chosen, the patient cannot have been issued any component devices or have reached the 36-month cap for oxygen equipment (CR 10854 special payment rule, 42 CFR414.222).

As the supply of devices is exhausted, we will need to shift to evidence-based manual options. Manual cough augmentation can be done effectively with a bag-valve mask, using breath stacking to achieve maximal lung insufflation, optimizing the length tension relationship of elastic recoil on exhalation to increase peak cough flow (PCF).

This can be done alone but is more effective when combined with manually assisted cough (Bach JR. Chest. 1993;104[5]:1553-62). These interventions require training of the caregivers, using resources such as those found at www.canventottawa.ca.

With continued supply chain instability, manual airway clearance techniques should be considered in patients with less advanced cough impairment (PCF 160-270 L/min), to save the remaining devices for those with PCF of <160 L/min.

Jeanette Brown, MD, PhD
Karin Provost, DO, PhD

Members-at-Large

Home-based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Disease Section

Navigating the latest device supply chain challenge: Mechanical airway clearance

Airway clearance is integral for patients with respiratory muscle weakness and is divided into cough augmentation (proximal airways) and sputum mobilizing techniques (distal airways). Cough augmentation techniques provide lung volume recruitment on the insufflation phase, in addition to mobilization of secretions with augmentation of the peak expiratory flow rate to >160 L/min on the exhalation phase.

A mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) device (T70 Cough Assist - Phillips) is now on indefinite backorder. This creates a dangerous situation for our patients requiring cough augmentation for survival. Alternative options that provide both MI-E and high frequency oscillation include two systems (Synclara Cough System – Hill-rom and the Biwaze Cough System-ABM Respiratory Care).

The Synclara can only be obtained in a direct-to-patient model, contracting with individual respiratory therapists, outside of the standard durable medical equipment model. The final MI-E model option is the VOCSYN multifunctional ventilator (ventilator, cough assist, nebulizer, oxygen concentrator, suction). This multifunction ventilator has had variable acceptance with HCPCS code E0467. If the VOCSYN is chosen, the patient cannot have been issued any component devices or have reached the 36-month cap for oxygen equipment (CR 10854 special payment rule, 42 CFR414.222).

As the supply of devices is exhausted, we will need to shift to evidence-based manual options. Manual cough augmentation can be done effectively with a bag-valve mask, using breath stacking to achieve maximal lung insufflation, optimizing the length tension relationship of elastic recoil on exhalation to increase peak cough flow (PCF).

This can be done alone but is more effective when combined with manually assisted cough (Bach JR. Chest. 1993;104[5]:1553-62). These interventions require training of the caregivers, using resources such as those found at www.canventottawa.ca.

With continued supply chain instability, manual airway clearance techniques should be considered in patients with less advanced cough impairment (PCF 160-270 L/min), to save the remaining devices for those with PCF of <160 L/min.

Jeanette Brown, MD, PhD
Karin Provost, DO, PhD

Members-at-Large

Home-based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Disease Section

Navigating the latest device supply chain challenge: Mechanical airway clearance

Airway clearance is integral for patients with respiratory muscle weakness and is divided into cough augmentation (proximal airways) and sputum mobilizing techniques (distal airways). Cough augmentation techniques provide lung volume recruitment on the insufflation phase, in addition to mobilization of secretions with augmentation of the peak expiratory flow rate to >160 L/min on the exhalation phase.

A mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) device (T70 Cough Assist - Phillips) is now on indefinite backorder. This creates a dangerous situation for our patients requiring cough augmentation for survival. Alternative options that provide both MI-E and high frequency oscillation include two systems (Synclara Cough System – Hill-rom and the Biwaze Cough System-ABM Respiratory Care).

The Synclara can only be obtained in a direct-to-patient model, contracting with individual respiratory therapists, outside of the standard durable medical equipment model. The final MI-E model option is the VOCSYN multifunctional ventilator (ventilator, cough assist, nebulizer, oxygen concentrator, suction). This multifunction ventilator has had variable acceptance with HCPCS code E0467. If the VOCSYN is chosen, the patient cannot have been issued any component devices or have reached the 36-month cap for oxygen equipment (CR 10854 special payment rule, 42 CFR414.222).

As the supply of devices is exhausted, we will need to shift to evidence-based manual options. Manual cough augmentation can be done effectively with a bag-valve mask, using breath stacking to achieve maximal lung insufflation, optimizing the length tension relationship of elastic recoil on exhalation to increase peak cough flow (PCF).

This can be done alone but is more effective when combined with manually assisted cough (Bach JR. Chest. 1993;104[5]:1553-62). These interventions require training of the caregivers, using resources such as those found at www.canventottawa.ca.

With continued supply chain instability, manual airway clearance techniques should be considered in patients with less advanced cough impairment (PCF 160-270 L/min), to save the remaining devices for those with PCF of <160 L/min.

Jeanette Brown, MD, PhD
Karin Provost, DO, PhD

Members-at-Large

Asthma and COPD Section

Go TEAM! Shared decision-making tool for patient-clinician collaboration in severe asthma

Optimal asthma management requires a patient-clinician collaboration to overcome barriers. Shared decision-making is associated with improved medication adherence in adults (Wilson, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;181[6]:566-77) and quality of life and asthma control in children (Taylor, et al. J Asthma. 2018;55[6]:675-83). The Global Initiative for Asthma committee recommends a patient-clinician partnership. Activated and engaged patients play a major role in their asthma management (https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports). Shared decision-making discussions should include potential benefits and harms of the therapeutic options, patient’s values and lifestyle preferences, and addressing concerns.

The CHEST Foundation, the Allergy and Asthma Network, and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology developed an online shared decision- making tool for severe asthma (https://asthma.chestnet.org/sdm-tool).

This tool utilizes patient’s values, specifics about triggers, asthma control, medication side effects, and lifestyle preferences to identify personalized management options. The tool provides information about recommended therapeutic options in simple terms, including potential benefits, possible side effects, expected treatment frequency and duration, and financial aid information. The treatment options currently explained in this tool include anti-immunoglobulin E, anti-interleukin-5, anti-interleukin-4/13, bronchial thermoplasty, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, macrolides, oral corticosteroids, and standard of care.
 

As a team, the patient and the health care professional can use this tool during office visits to help guide management. Figure 1 shows a suggested workflow to utilize the tool in clinical practice.

Potential barriers include excess time and increased human resources. Barrier mitigation may include reviewing the tool and reconciling the medications before the clinician enters the room. With these interventions, many clinician encounters may be completed in 10 to 15 minutes.

Farrukh Abbas, MBBS
Fellow-in-Training

Sandra G. Adams, MD, MS, FCCP
Member-at-Large

Asthma and COPD Section

Go TEAM! Shared decision-making tool for patient-clinician collaboration in severe asthma

Optimal asthma management requires a patient-clinician collaboration to overcome barriers. Shared decision-making is associated with improved medication adherence in adults (Wilson, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;181[6]:566-77) and quality of life and asthma control in children (Taylor, et al. J Asthma. 2018;55[6]:675-83). The Global Initiative for Asthma committee recommends a patient-clinician partnership. Activated and engaged patients play a major role in their asthma management (https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports). Shared decision-making discussions should include potential benefits and harms of the therapeutic options, patient’s values and lifestyle preferences, and addressing concerns.

The CHEST Foundation, the Allergy and Asthma Network, and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology developed an online shared decision- making tool for severe asthma (https://asthma.chestnet.org/sdm-tool).

This tool utilizes patient’s values, specifics about triggers, asthma control, medication side effects, and lifestyle preferences to identify personalized management options. The tool provides information about recommended therapeutic options in simple terms, including potential benefits, possible side effects, expected treatment frequency and duration, and financial aid information. The treatment options currently explained in this tool include anti-immunoglobulin E, anti-interleukin-5, anti-interleukin-4/13, bronchial thermoplasty, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, macrolides, oral corticosteroids, and standard of care.
 

As a team, the patient and the health care professional can use this tool during office visits to help guide management. Figure 1 shows a suggested workflow to utilize the tool in clinical practice.

Potential barriers include excess time and increased human resources. Barrier mitigation may include reviewing the tool and reconciling the medications before the clinician enters the room. With these interventions, many clinician encounters may be completed in 10 to 15 minutes.

Farrukh Abbas, MBBS
Fellow-in-Training

Sandra G. Adams, MD, MS, FCCP
Member-at-Large

Asthma and COPD Section

Go TEAM! Shared decision-making tool for patient-clinician collaboration in severe asthma

Optimal asthma management requires a patient-clinician collaboration to overcome barriers. Shared decision-making is associated with improved medication adherence in adults (Wilson, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;181[6]:566-77) and quality of life and asthma control in children (Taylor, et al. J Asthma. 2018;55[6]:675-83). The Global Initiative for Asthma committee recommends a patient-clinician partnership. Activated and engaged patients play a major role in their asthma management (https://ginasthma.org/gina-reports). Shared decision-making discussions should include potential benefits and harms of the therapeutic options, patient’s values and lifestyle preferences, and addressing concerns.

The CHEST Foundation, the Allergy and Asthma Network, and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology developed an online shared decision- making tool for severe asthma (https://asthma.chestnet.org/sdm-tool).

This tool utilizes patient’s values, specifics about triggers, asthma control, medication side effects, and lifestyle preferences to identify personalized management options. The tool provides information about recommended therapeutic options in simple terms, including potential benefits, possible side effects, expected treatment frequency and duration, and financial aid information. The treatment options currently explained in this tool include anti-immunoglobulin E, anti-interleukin-5, anti-interleukin-4/13, bronchial thermoplasty, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, macrolides, oral corticosteroids, and standard of care.
 

As a team, the patient and the health care professional can use this tool during office visits to help guide management. Figure 1 shows a suggested workflow to utilize the tool in clinical practice.

Potential barriers include excess time and increased human resources. Barrier mitigation may include reviewing the tool and reconciling the medications before the clinician enters the room. With these interventions, many clinician encounters may be completed in 10 to 15 minutes.

Farrukh Abbas, MBBS
Fellow-in-Training

Sandra G. Adams, MD, MS, FCCP
Member-at-Large

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dupilumab Reduces Oral Corticosteroid Use in Patients With Corticosteroid-Dependent Severe Asthma. By Lawrence D. Sher, MD, et al.

Carriage and Transmission of Macrolide Resistance Genes in Patients With Chronic Respiratory Conditions and Their Close Contacts. By Yiming Wang, MSc, et al.

An Evaluation of Factors That Influence Referral to Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programs Among People With COPD. By Sarah Hug, BSc, et al.

Prevalence and Outcomes of Previously Healthy Adults Among Patients Hospitalized With Community-Onset Sepsis. By Mohammad Alrawashdeh, PhD, MSN, et al.

Screening Strategies for Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease: A Multidisciplinary Delphi Study. By Franck F. Rahaghi, MD, et al.

Race- and Ethnicity-Based Spirometry Reference Equations: Are They Accurate for Genetically Admixed Children? By Jonathan Witonsky, MD, et al.

No VTE Recurrence After 1-Year Follow Up of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 and a VTE Event: A Prospective Study. By Maxime Delrue, MD, PhD, et al.
 

Patient Perspectives on Longitudinal Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening. By Anna Holman, BS, et al.

Dupilumab Reduces Oral Corticosteroid Use in Patients With Corticosteroid-Dependent Severe Asthma. By Lawrence D. Sher, MD, et al.

Carriage and Transmission of Macrolide Resistance Genes in Patients With Chronic Respiratory Conditions and Their Close Contacts. By Yiming Wang, MSc, et al.

An Evaluation of Factors That Influence Referral to Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programs Among People With COPD. By Sarah Hug, BSc, et al.

Prevalence and Outcomes of Previously Healthy Adults Among Patients Hospitalized With Community-Onset Sepsis. By Mohammad Alrawashdeh, PhD, MSN, et al.

Screening Strategies for Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease: A Multidisciplinary Delphi Study. By Franck F. Rahaghi, MD, et al.

Race- and Ethnicity-Based Spirometry Reference Equations: Are They Accurate for Genetically Admixed Children? By Jonathan Witonsky, MD, et al.

No VTE Recurrence After 1-Year Follow Up of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 and a VTE Event: A Prospective Study. By Maxime Delrue, MD, PhD, et al.
 

Patient Perspectives on Longitudinal Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening. By Anna Holman, BS, et al.

Dupilumab Reduces Oral Corticosteroid Use in Patients With Corticosteroid-Dependent Severe Asthma. By Lawrence D. Sher, MD, et al.

Carriage and Transmission of Macrolide Resistance Genes in Patients With Chronic Respiratory Conditions and Their Close Contacts. By Yiming Wang, MSc, et al.

An Evaluation of Factors That Influence Referral to Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programs Among People With COPD. By Sarah Hug, BSc, et al.

Prevalence and Outcomes of Previously Healthy Adults Among Patients Hospitalized With Community-Onset Sepsis. By Mohammad Alrawashdeh, PhD, MSN, et al.

Screening Strategies for Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease: A Multidisciplinary Delphi Study. By Franck F. Rahaghi, MD, et al.

Race- and Ethnicity-Based Spirometry Reference Equations: Are They Accurate for Genetically Admixed Children? By Jonathan Witonsky, MD, et al.

No VTE Recurrence After 1-Year Follow Up of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 and a VTE Event: A Prospective Study. By Maxime Delrue, MD, PhD, et al.
 

Patient Perspectives on Longitudinal Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening. By Anna Holman, BS, et al.

After years of remote learning from behind computer screens, we’re kicking off the in-person CHEST 2022 meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, with a bang—or, more accurately, with a step kick, swivel, and stomp—at the Wildhorse Saloon.

The Wildhorse is famous for hosting daily line dancing lessons on the largest dance floor in the downtown area and for having a menu full of Nashville favorites, including Nashville hot chicken and a hearty selection of entrees (as well as a decadent bananas foster) with a “Jack Daniels” single barrel whiskey glaze.

The opening reception offers attendees the opportunity to relax and reconnect with their peers from across the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine before the jam-packed schedule of more than 300 educational sessions starts the following day.

But the fun doesn’t stop there. Attendees interested in exploring the city after hours have a host of options, from world-class music venues to iconic distilleries and restaurants. The Music City Center, where CHEST 2022 will be held, is located in the SoBro neighborhood of Nashville, not far from the Arts District, Downtown, and Music Row.

According to Nashville local and CHEST member Meredith Pugh, MD, MSCI, “it goes without saying that we have the best music scene in the country, but it’s a great place for outdoor activities and food.”

For those who don’t get their fill at the Wildhorse, Dr. Pugh recommends attendees check out the Assembly Food Hall (.3 miles from the convention center) to try the city’s famous Nashville Hot Chicken and a variety of other local options. And, don’t miss the many excellent options for BBQ. Fellow Nashville transplant and CHEST member Todd Rice, MD, FCCP, suggests Martin’s Bar-B-Que Joint and Jack’s Bar-B-Que—both within walking distance of the Music City Center—as well as other local options.

To learn more about everything Nashville has to offer, and get more recommendations from Drs. Rice and Pugh, check out the latest CHEST 2022 blog on chestnet.org

After years of remote learning from behind computer screens, we’re kicking off the in-person CHEST 2022 meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, with a bang—or, more accurately, with a step kick, swivel, and stomp—at the Wildhorse Saloon.

The Wildhorse is famous for hosting daily line dancing lessons on the largest dance floor in the downtown area and for having a menu full of Nashville favorites, including Nashville hot chicken and a hearty selection of entrees (as well as a decadent bananas foster) with a “Jack Daniels” single barrel whiskey glaze.

The opening reception offers attendees the opportunity to relax and reconnect with their peers from across the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine before the jam-packed schedule of more than 300 educational sessions starts the following day.

But the fun doesn’t stop there. Attendees interested in exploring the city after hours have a host of options, from world-class music venues to iconic distilleries and restaurants. The Music City Center, where CHEST 2022 will be held, is located in the SoBro neighborhood of Nashville, not far from the Arts District, Downtown, and Music Row.

According to Nashville local and CHEST member Meredith Pugh, MD, MSCI, “it goes without saying that we have the best music scene in the country, but it’s a great place for outdoor activities and food.”

For those who don’t get their fill at the Wildhorse, Dr. Pugh recommends attendees check out the Assembly Food Hall (.3 miles from the convention center) to try the city’s famous Nashville Hot Chicken and a variety of other local options. And, don’t miss the many excellent options for BBQ. Fellow Nashville transplant and CHEST member Todd Rice, MD, FCCP, suggests Martin’s Bar-B-Que Joint and Jack’s Bar-B-Que—both within walking distance of the Music City Center—as well as other local options.

To learn more about everything Nashville has to offer, and get more recommendations from Drs. Rice and Pugh, check out the latest CHEST 2022 blog on chestnet.org

After years of remote learning from behind computer screens, we’re kicking off the in-person CHEST 2022 meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, with a bang—or, more accurately, with a step kick, swivel, and stomp—at the Wildhorse Saloon.

The Wildhorse is famous for hosting daily line dancing lessons on the largest dance floor in the downtown area and for having a menu full of Nashville favorites, including Nashville hot chicken and a hearty selection of entrees (as well as a decadent bananas foster) with a “Jack Daniels” single barrel whiskey glaze.

The opening reception offers attendees the opportunity to relax and reconnect with their peers from across the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine before the jam-packed schedule of more than 300 educational sessions starts the following day.

But the fun doesn’t stop there. Attendees interested in exploring the city after hours have a host of options, from world-class music venues to iconic distilleries and restaurants. The Music City Center, where CHEST 2022 will be held, is located in the SoBro neighborhood of Nashville, not far from the Arts District, Downtown, and Music Row.

According to Nashville local and CHEST member Meredith Pugh, MD, MSCI, “it goes without saying that we have the best music scene in the country, but it’s a great place for outdoor activities and food.”

For those who don’t get their fill at the Wildhorse, Dr. Pugh recommends attendees check out the Assembly Food Hall (.3 miles from the convention center) to try the city’s famous Nashville Hot Chicken and a variety of other local options. And, don’t miss the many excellent options for BBQ. Fellow Nashville transplant and CHEST member Todd Rice, MD, FCCP, suggests Martin’s Bar-B-Que Joint and Jack’s Bar-B-Que—both within walking distance of the Music City Center—as well as other local options.

To learn more about everything Nashville has to offer, and get more recommendations from Drs. Rice and Pugh, check out the latest CHEST 2022 blog on chestnet.org

Overview of the problem

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an extraordinarily common condition impacting nearly 1 billion individuals globally (Benjafield AV, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[8]:687). For the past 40 years, the mainstay of treatment has been continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, CPAP usage is highly variable, and not all sleep apnea is created the same with respect to underlying mechanism or patient symptoms. Currently, there is a global CPAP shortage, which has expedited the need for alternative therapies in OSA (Owens RL, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204[8]:887). Here, we will provide a broad overview of how individual sleep apnea therapies may be implemented in the sleep clinic and beyond.

Characterizing OSA

First, it is important to understand that sleep apnea emerges for multiple reasons. Some examples include: an excessively collapsible airway, insufficient upper airway reflexes, low arousal threshold (awakening easily to ventilatory disturbance), as well as an unstable chemoreflex system. This list is not comprehensive. However, we believe that the future of OSA management will be targeted therapy for individual OSA traits.

Notably, the patient experience of OSA is also highly variable. Some individuals are excessively sleepy. Some individuals experience OSA as insomnia. Other patients are asymptomatic, but present to the sleep clinic at the behest of a disgruntled bed partner. These individual factors should all be kept in mind when deciding when and how to treat sleep apnea.
 

OSA scoring – past, present, and future

The traditional method for scoring sleep apnea severity is the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), with mild, moderate, and severe OSA being stratified by the number of events per hour. This metric has shaped many of the modern sleep practices and consensus recommendations but is simply not sophisticated enough to capture the nuance of how or why an individual’s sleep is disrupted from flow-limited breathing. As such, there has been a push in recent times to tailor treatment for OSA to an individual’s physiology. Examples of alternative metrics which quantify sleep apnea traits include the apnea-hypopnea event duration, the sleep apnea-specific hypoxic burden (area under the SpO₂ curve for flow-limited events), as well as the arousal intensity from sleep in the setting of flow-limited breathing. There are numerous other metrics that have been proposed but are beyond the scope of this review (Malhotra A, et al. Sleep. 2021;44[7]:zsab030).

What therapies are available and how can we individualize them to our patients?

As noted, CPAP has been the gold-standard for OSA treatment for 40 years but is not always accepted or tolerated (Malhotra A, et al. Chest. 2018;153[4]:843). Broad categories of OSA management are presented as follows.
 

Surgery for OSA

Upper airway surgery is effective for pediatric OSA treatment, where enlarged tonsils are often the culprit for flow-limited breathing in sleep. For adults, however, there is no one best surgery or surgical candidate. For instance, surgery can be used to improve CPAP tolerance or as a primary OSA treatment. Many individuals with sinus disease may require sinus surgery or septoplasty to improve CPAP tolerability by creating more space for airflow through the nasopharynx. Retrognathic individuals, on the other hand, may benefit from maxillomandibular advancement. Others may benefit from genioglossus advancement or hyoid suspension. The characteristics of the soft palate can be predictive of surgical success with respect to uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP), with longer uvulas and redundant soft palate tissue being attractive surgical targets. Obviously, this list is far from comprehensive, but Friedman tongue position, tonsil size, and body mass index also appear to be important in predicting surgical success (MacKay S, et al. JAMA. 2020;324[12]:1168).

Hypoglossal nerve stimulation is one surgical treatment option for patients with moderate-severe OSA who are unable or unwilling to use CPAP therapy, have a BMI <32-35 kg/m² (center-dependent), no concentric velopharyngeal collapse on drug-induced sleep endoscopy, and fewer than 25% central/mixed apneas on their sleep study. Areas for further study are whether unilateral or bilateral stimulation are most effective, as well as which of the sleep apnea traits are most predictive of a treatment response (Strohl MM, et al. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2017;3[3]:133).

Notably, surgical techniques are highly variable, and there are individual patient characteristics, such as lower loop gain (more stable ventilatory control), which may have a greater likelihood of successful upper airway surgery. This is likely because making the upper airway more patent allows for ventilatory overshoots and thereby airway collapse and cyclic, unstable breathing in those with an unstable ventilatory control system. Trials with prespecified surgical techniques based on individual traits are welcome. Additionally, the metrics of a successful surgical treatment for OSA, much like the AHI, are in need of evolution. The Sher criteria, for instance (50% AHI reduction to an AHI < 20/h), are arbitrary, and their clinical utility is unclear.
 

Oral appliances

Oral appliances fall into two broad categories – tongue-retaining devices and mandibular advancement splints (MAS). Of the two, MAS are much more commonly prescribed. Of the MAS devices, custom made devices by an American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AADSM)–trained dentist are recommended over noncustom MAS in the treatment of primary snoring or OSA for those unwilling or unable to wear CPAP. Notably, the 2015 American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and AADSM shared guidelines were unable to make OSA treatment recommendations based on severity of disease as stratified by the AHI due to the limited quality of evidence. These devices are broadly thought to work by protruding the mandible/tongue and, in-turn, advancing multiple soft tissue components of the velopharynx. Relatively recent work suggests that the following OSA traits are associated with MAS efficacy: lower loop gain, higher arousal threshold, lower ventilatory response to arousal, moderate pharyngeal collapsibility, and weaker upper airway dilator muscle compensation. However, in order for these devices to be successful, close follow-up for titration with a AADSM-certified dentist, as well as a follow-up efficacy sleep study, are recommended. Adherence for custom device use appears to be about 70% use greater than 4 hours per night, with 35% to 40% of those prescribed a device achieving an AHI less than 5/h. Over the counter devices are not routinely recommended, though some practices do use these devices as a trial to see if patients may tolerate custom made devices (Ramar K, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2015;11[7]:773).

Upper airway training

Upper airway training has been shown possibly to be effective in treating OSA, though the ideal endotype is still being established. Upper airway training has taken many forms, from woodwind instrument playing, to nocturnal electrical stimulation of the tongue, and, more recently, daytime awake transoral neuromuscular stimulation. These interventions appear to be effective for mild sleep apnea and snoring, but the best training regimen has yet to be established. Equally, as with other routine exercise, there appears to be a “use it or lose it” component, and the ideal maintenance regimen for each of these therapies is yet to be determined.

Weight loss and bariatric surgery

Obesity is a common, reversible risk factor for OSA. However, not all obese individuals develop OSA (typically those with robust upper airway reflexes). Improvements in weight appear to correlate with reductions in tongue fat, which correlate to AHI reduction. Weight loss also creates lower CPAP requirements for many individuals, conceivably improving tolerability. Ongoing work is seeking to understand whether there are changes in upper airway muscle recruitability as well as other change in endotype traits following weight loss surgery.

Pharmacotherapy for OSA

There is a great deal of promise in tailoring pharmacotherapy to individual sleep traits. Acetazolamide, for instance, results in improvements an AHI for both obstructive and central sleep apnea through changes in chemosensitivity and is generally well-tolerated (Schmickl CN, et al. Physiol Rep. 2021;9[20]:e15071). Eszopiclone has been used to raise the arousal threshold for those who awaken from breathing events too easily. With added time, individuals with a low arousal threshold can more effectively recruit upper airway dilator muscles without waking up. Pharmacotherapy to improve upper airway recruitability with combination noradrenergic stimulation and antimuscarinic activity has limited data thus far but may be a useful part of the sleep armamentarium moving forward.

Summary

OSA is a public health priority, and the current global CPAP shortage emphasizes the need for alternative OSA therapies. The ideal therapy for a given patient requires a careful consideration of their individual traits and will be much more refined when endotyping is available in a routine clinical setting. Individualized sleep apnea treatment is the future of sleep medicine and a one-size fits all approach no longer meets the needs of our patients given the current state of sleep medicine knowledge.

Dr. Nokes, Dr. Schmickl, and Dr. Malhotra are with the University of California, San Diego, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, La, Jolla, CA. Dr. Nokes also is with the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, sleep section, San Diego, CA. Dr. Vahabzadeh-Hagh is with the University of California, San Diego, Department of Otolaryngology, San Diego, CA.

Overview of the problem

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an extraordinarily common condition impacting nearly 1 billion individuals globally (Benjafield AV, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[8]:687). For the past 40 years, the mainstay of treatment has been continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, CPAP usage is highly variable, and not all sleep apnea is created the same with respect to underlying mechanism or patient symptoms. Currently, there is a global CPAP shortage, which has expedited the need for alternative therapies in OSA (Owens RL, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204[8]:887). Here, we will provide a broad overview of how individual sleep apnea therapies may be implemented in the sleep clinic and beyond.

Characterizing OSA

First, it is important to understand that sleep apnea emerges for multiple reasons. Some examples include: an excessively collapsible airway, insufficient upper airway reflexes, low arousal threshold (awakening easily to ventilatory disturbance), as well as an unstable chemoreflex system. This list is not comprehensive. However, we believe that the future of OSA management will be targeted therapy for individual OSA traits.

Notably, the patient experience of OSA is also highly variable. Some individuals are excessively sleepy. Some individuals experience OSA as insomnia. Other patients are asymptomatic, but present to the sleep clinic at the behest of a disgruntled bed partner. These individual factors should all be kept in mind when deciding when and how to treat sleep apnea.
 

OSA scoring – past, present, and future

The traditional method for scoring sleep apnea severity is the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), with mild, moderate, and severe OSA being stratified by the number of events per hour. This metric has shaped many of the modern sleep practices and consensus recommendations but is simply not sophisticated enough to capture the nuance of how or why an individual’s sleep is disrupted from flow-limited breathing. As such, there has been a push in recent times to tailor treatment for OSA to an individual’s physiology. Examples of alternative metrics which quantify sleep apnea traits include the apnea-hypopnea event duration, the sleep apnea-specific hypoxic burden (area under the SpO₂ curve for flow-limited events), as well as the arousal intensity from sleep in the setting of flow-limited breathing. There are numerous other metrics that have been proposed but are beyond the scope of this review (Malhotra A, et al. Sleep. 2021;44[7]:zsab030).

What therapies are available and how can we individualize them to our patients?

As noted, CPAP has been the gold-standard for OSA treatment for 40 years but is not always accepted or tolerated (Malhotra A, et al. Chest. 2018;153[4]:843). Broad categories of OSA management are presented as follows.
 

Surgery for OSA

Upper airway surgery is effective for pediatric OSA treatment, where enlarged tonsils are often the culprit for flow-limited breathing in sleep. For adults, however, there is no one best surgery or surgical candidate. For instance, surgery can be used to improve CPAP tolerance or as a primary OSA treatment. Many individuals with sinus disease may require sinus surgery or septoplasty to improve CPAP tolerability by creating more space for airflow through the nasopharynx. Retrognathic individuals, on the other hand, may benefit from maxillomandibular advancement. Others may benefit from genioglossus advancement or hyoid suspension. The characteristics of the soft palate can be predictive of surgical success with respect to uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP), with longer uvulas and redundant soft palate tissue being attractive surgical targets. Obviously, this list is far from comprehensive, but Friedman tongue position, tonsil size, and body mass index also appear to be important in predicting surgical success (MacKay S, et al. JAMA. 2020;324[12]:1168).

Hypoglossal nerve stimulation is one surgical treatment option for patients with moderate-severe OSA who are unable or unwilling to use CPAP therapy, have a BMI <32-35 kg/m² (center-dependent), no concentric velopharyngeal collapse on drug-induced sleep endoscopy, and fewer than 25% central/mixed apneas on their sleep study. Areas for further study are whether unilateral or bilateral stimulation are most effective, as well as which of the sleep apnea traits are most predictive of a treatment response (Strohl MM, et al. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2017;3[3]:133).

Notably, surgical techniques are highly variable, and there are individual patient characteristics, such as lower loop gain (more stable ventilatory control), which may have a greater likelihood of successful upper airway surgery. This is likely because making the upper airway more patent allows for ventilatory overshoots and thereby airway collapse and cyclic, unstable breathing in those with an unstable ventilatory control system. Trials with prespecified surgical techniques based on individual traits are welcome. Additionally, the metrics of a successful surgical treatment for OSA, much like the AHI, are in need of evolution. The Sher criteria, for instance (50% AHI reduction to an AHI < 20/h), are arbitrary, and their clinical utility is unclear.
 

Oral appliances

Oral appliances fall into two broad categories – tongue-retaining devices and mandibular advancement splints (MAS). Of the two, MAS are much more commonly prescribed. Of the MAS devices, custom made devices by an American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AADSM)–trained dentist are recommended over noncustom MAS in the treatment of primary snoring or OSA for those unwilling or unable to wear CPAP. Notably, the 2015 American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and AADSM shared guidelines were unable to make OSA treatment recommendations based on severity of disease as stratified by the AHI due to the limited quality of evidence. These devices are broadly thought to work by protruding the mandible/tongue and, in-turn, advancing multiple soft tissue components of the velopharynx. Relatively recent work suggests that the following OSA traits are associated with MAS efficacy: lower loop gain, higher arousal threshold, lower ventilatory response to arousal, moderate pharyngeal collapsibility, and weaker upper airway dilator muscle compensation. However, in order for these devices to be successful, close follow-up for titration with a AADSM-certified dentist, as well as a follow-up efficacy sleep study, are recommended. Adherence for custom device use appears to be about 70% use greater than 4 hours per night, with 35% to 40% of those prescribed a device achieving an AHI less than 5/h. Over the counter devices are not routinely recommended, though some practices do use these devices as a trial to see if patients may tolerate custom made devices (Ramar K, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2015;11[7]:773).

Upper airway training

Upper airway training has been shown possibly to be effective in treating OSA, though the ideal endotype is still being established. Upper airway training has taken many forms, from woodwind instrument playing, to nocturnal electrical stimulation of the tongue, and, more recently, daytime awake transoral neuromuscular stimulation. These interventions appear to be effective for mild sleep apnea and snoring, but the best training regimen has yet to be established. Equally, as with other routine exercise, there appears to be a “use it or lose it” component, and the ideal maintenance regimen for each of these therapies is yet to be determined.

Weight loss and bariatric surgery

Obesity is a common, reversible risk factor for OSA. However, not all obese individuals develop OSA (typically those with robust upper airway reflexes). Improvements in weight appear to correlate with reductions in tongue fat, which correlate to AHI reduction. Weight loss also creates lower CPAP requirements for many individuals, conceivably improving tolerability. Ongoing work is seeking to understand whether there are changes in upper airway muscle recruitability as well as other change in endotype traits following weight loss surgery.

Pharmacotherapy for OSA

There is a great deal of promise in tailoring pharmacotherapy to individual sleep traits. Acetazolamide, for instance, results in improvements an AHI for both obstructive and central sleep apnea through changes in chemosensitivity and is generally well-tolerated (Schmickl CN, et al. Physiol Rep. 2021;9[20]:e15071). Eszopiclone has been used to raise the arousal threshold for those who awaken from breathing events too easily. With added time, individuals with a low arousal threshold can more effectively recruit upper airway dilator muscles without waking up. Pharmacotherapy to improve upper airway recruitability with combination noradrenergic stimulation and antimuscarinic activity has limited data thus far but may be a useful part of the sleep armamentarium moving forward.

Summary

OSA is a public health priority, and the current global CPAP shortage emphasizes the need for alternative OSA therapies. The ideal therapy for a given patient requires a careful consideration of their individual traits and will be much more refined when endotyping is available in a routine clinical setting. Individualized sleep apnea treatment is the future of sleep medicine and a one-size fits all approach no longer meets the needs of our patients given the current state of sleep medicine knowledge.

Dr. Nokes, Dr. Schmickl, and Dr. Malhotra are with the University of California, San Diego, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, La, Jolla, CA. Dr. Nokes also is with the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, sleep section, San Diego, CA. Dr. Vahabzadeh-Hagh is with the University of California, San Diego, Department of Otolaryngology, San Diego, CA.

Overview of the problem

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an extraordinarily common condition impacting nearly 1 billion individuals globally (Benjafield AV, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[8]:687). For the past 40 years, the mainstay of treatment has been continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, CPAP usage is highly variable, and not all sleep apnea is created the same with respect to underlying mechanism or patient symptoms. Currently, there is a global CPAP shortage, which has expedited the need for alternative therapies in OSA (Owens RL, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204[8]:887). Here, we will provide a broad overview of how individual sleep apnea therapies may be implemented in the sleep clinic and beyond.

Characterizing OSA

First, it is important to understand that sleep apnea emerges for multiple reasons. Some examples include: an excessively collapsible airway, insufficient upper airway reflexes, low arousal threshold (awakening easily to ventilatory disturbance), as well as an unstable chemoreflex system. This list is not comprehensive. However, we believe that the future of OSA management will be targeted therapy for individual OSA traits.

Notably, the patient experience of OSA is also highly variable. Some individuals are excessively sleepy. Some individuals experience OSA as insomnia. Other patients are asymptomatic, but present to the sleep clinic at the behest of a disgruntled bed partner. These individual factors should all be kept in mind when deciding when and how to treat sleep apnea.
 

OSA scoring – past, present, and future

The traditional method for scoring sleep apnea severity is the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), with mild, moderate, and severe OSA being stratified by the number of events per hour. This metric has shaped many of the modern sleep practices and consensus recommendations but is simply not sophisticated enough to capture the nuance of how or why an individual’s sleep is disrupted from flow-limited breathing. As such, there has been a push in recent times to tailor treatment for OSA to an individual’s physiology. Examples of alternative metrics which quantify sleep apnea traits include the apnea-hypopnea event duration, the sleep apnea-specific hypoxic burden (area under the SpO₂ curve for flow-limited events), as well as the arousal intensity from sleep in the setting of flow-limited breathing. There are numerous other metrics that have been proposed but are beyond the scope of this review (Malhotra A, et al. Sleep. 2021;44[7]:zsab030).

What therapies are available and how can we individualize them to our patients?

As noted, CPAP has been the gold-standard for OSA treatment for 40 years but is not always accepted or tolerated (Malhotra A, et al. Chest. 2018;153[4]:843). Broad categories of OSA management are presented as follows.
 

Surgery for OSA

Upper airway surgery is effective for pediatric OSA treatment, where enlarged tonsils are often the culprit for flow-limited breathing in sleep. For adults, however, there is no one best surgery or surgical candidate. For instance, surgery can be used to improve CPAP tolerance or as a primary OSA treatment. Many individuals with sinus disease may require sinus surgery or septoplasty to improve CPAP tolerability by creating more space for airflow through the nasopharynx. Retrognathic individuals, on the other hand, may benefit from maxillomandibular advancement. Others may benefit from genioglossus advancement or hyoid suspension. The characteristics of the soft palate can be predictive of surgical success with respect to uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP), with longer uvulas and redundant soft palate tissue being attractive surgical targets. Obviously, this list is far from comprehensive, but Friedman tongue position, tonsil size, and body mass index also appear to be important in predicting surgical success (MacKay S, et al. JAMA. 2020;324[12]:1168).

Hypoglossal nerve stimulation is one surgical treatment option for patients with moderate-severe OSA who are unable or unwilling to use CPAP therapy, have a BMI <32-35 kg/m² (center-dependent), no concentric velopharyngeal collapse on drug-induced sleep endoscopy, and fewer than 25% central/mixed apneas on their sleep study. Areas for further study are whether unilateral or bilateral stimulation are most effective, as well as which of the sleep apnea traits are most predictive of a treatment response (Strohl MM, et al. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2017;3[3]:133).

Notably, surgical techniques are highly variable, and there are individual patient characteristics, such as lower loop gain (more stable ventilatory control), which may have a greater likelihood of successful upper airway surgery. This is likely because making the upper airway more patent allows for ventilatory overshoots and thereby airway collapse and cyclic, unstable breathing in those with an unstable ventilatory control system. Trials with prespecified surgical techniques based on individual traits are welcome. Additionally, the metrics of a successful surgical treatment for OSA, much like the AHI, are in need of evolution. The Sher criteria, for instance (50% AHI reduction to an AHI < 20/h), are arbitrary, and their clinical utility is unclear.
 

Oral appliances

Oral appliances fall into two broad categories – tongue-retaining devices and mandibular advancement splints (MAS). Of the two, MAS are much more commonly prescribed. Of the MAS devices, custom made devices by an American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AADSM)–trained dentist are recommended over noncustom MAS in the treatment of primary snoring or OSA for those unwilling or unable to wear CPAP. Notably, the 2015 American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and AADSM shared guidelines were unable to make OSA treatment recommendations based on severity of disease as stratified by the AHI due to the limited quality of evidence. These devices are broadly thought to work by protruding the mandible/tongue and, in-turn, advancing multiple soft tissue components of the velopharynx. Relatively recent work suggests that the following OSA traits are associated with MAS efficacy: lower loop gain, higher arousal threshold, lower ventilatory response to arousal, moderate pharyngeal collapsibility, and weaker upper airway dilator muscle compensation. However, in order for these devices to be successful, close follow-up for titration with a AADSM-certified dentist, as well as a follow-up efficacy sleep study, are recommended. Adherence for custom device use appears to be about 70% use greater than 4 hours per night, with 35% to 40% of those prescribed a device achieving an AHI less than 5/h. Over the counter devices are not routinely recommended, though some practices do use these devices as a trial to see if patients may tolerate custom made devices (Ramar K, et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2015;11[7]:773).

Upper airway training

Upper airway training has been shown possibly to be effective in treating OSA, though the ideal endotype is still being established. Upper airway training has taken many forms, from woodwind instrument playing, to nocturnal electrical stimulation of the tongue, and, more recently, daytime awake transoral neuromuscular stimulation. These interventions appear to be effective for mild sleep apnea and snoring, but the best training regimen has yet to be established. Equally, as with other routine exercise, there appears to be a “use it or lose it” component, and the ideal maintenance regimen for each of these therapies is yet to be determined.

Weight loss and bariatric surgery

Obesity is a common, reversible risk factor for OSA. However, not all obese individuals develop OSA (typically those with robust upper airway reflexes). Improvements in weight appear to correlate with reductions in tongue fat, which correlate to AHI reduction. Weight loss also creates lower CPAP requirements for many individuals, conceivably improving tolerability. Ongoing work is seeking to understand whether there are changes in upper airway muscle recruitability as well as other change in endotype traits following weight loss surgery.

Pharmacotherapy for OSA

There is a great deal of promise in tailoring pharmacotherapy to individual sleep traits. Acetazolamide, for instance, results in improvements an AHI for both obstructive and central sleep apnea through changes in chemosensitivity and is generally well-tolerated (Schmickl CN, et al. Physiol Rep. 2021;9[20]:e15071). Eszopiclone has been used to raise the arousal threshold for those who awaken from breathing events too easily. With added time, individuals with a low arousal threshold can more effectively recruit upper airway dilator muscles without waking up. Pharmacotherapy to improve upper airway recruitability with combination noradrenergic stimulation and antimuscarinic activity has limited data thus far but may be a useful part of the sleep armamentarium moving forward.

Summary

OSA is a public health priority, and the current global CPAP shortage emphasizes the need for alternative OSA therapies. The ideal therapy for a given patient requires a careful consideration of their individual traits and will be much more refined when endotyping is available in a routine clinical setting. Individualized sleep apnea treatment is the future of sleep medicine and a one-size fits all approach no longer meets the needs of our patients given the current state of sleep medicine knowledge.

Dr. Nokes, Dr. Schmickl, and Dr. Malhotra are with the University of California, San Diego, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, La, Jolla, CA. Dr. Nokes also is with the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, sleep section, San Diego, CA. Dr. Vahabzadeh-Hagh is with the University of California, San Diego, Department of Otolaryngology, San Diego, CA.