User login
Are we there yet? Lung cancer screening – current landscape
Lung cancer is the second-most common cancer and one of the leading causes of mortality in the United States among both men and women. It accounts for almost 25% of all cancer deaths, and every year more people die of lung cancer than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. The American Cancer Society estimates about 235,760 new lung cancer cases and about 131,880 deaths from lung cancer in 2021.
Smoking and increasing age are the two most important risk factors for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a higher incidence among Black men than White men, and among White women compared with Black women. These differences are likely related to smoking exposure. Early diagnosis of lung cancer can improve survival, and hence screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations is desired. Among the available cancer screening tests, radiology is primarily involved in breast and lung cancer screening (LCS). In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a benefit of annual low- dose chest CT for LCS, with about 20% reduction in lung cancer-related mortality in high-risk participants compared with chest radiographs (Aberle DR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365[5]:395-409).
In 2013, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation in support of annual LCS by CT scan for individuals between the ages of 55-80 years with smoking history of 30 or more pack-years who are current smokers or had quit smoking in the last 15 years. Many other professional societies followed with their own recommendations with minor differences. In 2015, after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) decision of coverage, millions of Americans at high risk became eligible for CT LCS with no copayment or cost sharing by the patient.
The results from the European NELSON trial in 2020 augmented the NLST data showing a 24% decrease in lung cancer mortality. Nodules were measured using volume and volume doubling time rather than bidimensional axial measurements, reducing the false-positive results to 56% compared with 96% in NLST. With growing evidence of the benefits from LCS, recently USPSTF summarized with moderate certainty that annual LCS CT has moderate net benefit in people at high risk for lung cancer based on age, cumulative smoking exposure, and years since quitting smoking.
In March 2021, USPSTF has issued new recommendations with a decrease in the screening age to 50 years, and the smoking history that triggers screening to 20 pack-years (Screening for Lung Cancer: USPSTF Statement. JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325[10]:962-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117). These expanded eligibility criteria are projected to double the number of eligible candidates of LCS in the United States, reduce annual deaths by up to 50%, and benefit minorities and women. By widening the screening criteria to include younger individuals and who have smoked less tobacco, more lives will be saved by early detection of lung cancer. Since the NLST and NELSON trials enrolled relatively healthy people, USPSTF recommends discontinuation of screening once the person has not smoked for 15 years and in persons with any health problem that severely limits the life expectancy or the ability or willingness to undergo surgery. All screening programs must incorporate smoking cessation counseling and interventions for all the enrolled individuals who are current smokers. The USPSTF has also made recommendations on interventions to prevent the initiation of tobacco use in children and adolescents, including counseling and pharmacotherapy.
The decision to undergo LCS is inherently complex, and primary care and pulmonary physicians play a pivotal role by identifying the eligible patients, participating in shared decision-making (SDM), offering smoking cessation, ordering the CT, and managing follow-up. SDM between the patient and clinician includes a discussion of the benefits, risks, limitations, and potential harms of screening. The potential harms of screening include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, incidental findings, and the anxiety leading to further testing or follow-up. The risk of radiation exposure is markedly reduced using low-dose CT protocols compared with conventional chest CT. SDM visit also emphasizes the importance of adherence to annual screening and patient willingness and ability to undergo treatment if required. In 2015, CMS approved the addition of LCS counseling and SDM visits that are performed by physicians or qualified nonphysician practitioners (physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist). Studies have shown that these visits improve the screening uptake rate.
To minimize the variations in the evaluation and management of screen-detected lung nodules, the American College of Radiology (ACR) developed the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) to be used in LCS CT reports. The latest revised version 1.1 of Lung-RADS was released in 2019. The Lung-RADS defines a positive screen and provides accepted nodule care pathways depending on their size, characteristics, and additional findings, and has been shown to decrease the rate of false-positive results in LCS. To be a designated LCS center, the department of radiology must comply with stringent requirements of technical and facility specification, with radiologist qualification, and with reporting and communication as outlined by the ACR. In addition, participation in the National LCS Registry to meet CMS quality reporting requirements is mandatory for facilities to be reimbursed by CMS.
After more than 10 years since its inception, the participation in LCS has been low. Out of 8 million eligible Americans, less than 4% have been screened (American Cancer Society, NSCLC statistics 2020) compared with breast cancer (up to 75%) (Breast Cancer: Facts and Figures 2019-2020). Adherence to annual LCS between 1-3 years in the US is only about 55%. Non-White patients, current smokers, those aged 65-73 years, and those who lack a college education are most likely to be less adherent to follow-up screening. There are hurdles at multiple levels including but not limited to patient and physician awareness, patient enrollment, adherence, follow-up, and insurance coverage. Expanding the reach of LCS in socially and economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, and women has been even more challenging.
Significant differences exist in opinions and practices between primary care physicians (PCPs) and pulmonologists regarding referral for LCS and its benefits. Educational intervention at the PCP level aimed at awareness of USPSTF guidelines may improve utilization and adherence to screening. Increasing lung cancer awareness by community outreach programs, promoting related discussions, and providing information about available screening services to eligible population is crucial to derive the maximum benefits of LCS. Presenting decision aid tools on smartphones and online has shown to improve the participants’ knowledge of LCS, to reduce the decisional conflict, and to be acceptable among patients and providers. Implementation strategies such as involving a nonphysician provider, keeping the training on these tools brief and simple, and providing it to participants prior to the clinical encounter might be effective. Electronic medical record systems can be optimized to simplify the ordering procedure to ensure the eligibility criteria are met, to provide results to the physicians, and to direct further management of positive screen results. Most LCS programs have a nonphysician program coordinator to convey the results to the patients and physician, to send out reminders for scheduled follow up appointment, and to maintain the registry data.
In the future, newer imaging technology, and molecular biomarkers or other technologies to differentiate lung cancer more accurately from a benign nodule, and to determine its aggressiveness, will supplement the LCS to decrease false positive results. Better risk prediction models will influence screening eligibility and prognostication in a screen-detected cancer. Robust data collection from ongoing clinical programs will determine if the benefits of LCS seen in clinical trials are comparable when applied to diverse community settings.
Dr. Stowell and Dr. Sonavane are with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Lung cancer is the second-most common cancer and one of the leading causes of mortality in the United States among both men and women. It accounts for almost 25% of all cancer deaths, and every year more people die of lung cancer than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. The American Cancer Society estimates about 235,760 new lung cancer cases and about 131,880 deaths from lung cancer in 2021.
Smoking and increasing age are the two most important risk factors for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a higher incidence among Black men than White men, and among White women compared with Black women. These differences are likely related to smoking exposure. Early diagnosis of lung cancer can improve survival, and hence screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations is desired. Among the available cancer screening tests, radiology is primarily involved in breast and lung cancer screening (LCS). In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a benefit of annual low- dose chest CT for LCS, with about 20% reduction in lung cancer-related mortality in high-risk participants compared with chest radiographs (Aberle DR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365[5]:395-409).
In 2013, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation in support of annual LCS by CT scan for individuals between the ages of 55-80 years with smoking history of 30 or more pack-years who are current smokers or had quit smoking in the last 15 years. Many other professional societies followed with their own recommendations with minor differences. In 2015, after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) decision of coverage, millions of Americans at high risk became eligible for CT LCS with no copayment or cost sharing by the patient.
The results from the European NELSON trial in 2020 augmented the NLST data showing a 24% decrease in lung cancer mortality. Nodules were measured using volume and volume doubling time rather than bidimensional axial measurements, reducing the false-positive results to 56% compared with 96% in NLST. With growing evidence of the benefits from LCS, recently USPSTF summarized with moderate certainty that annual LCS CT has moderate net benefit in people at high risk for lung cancer based on age, cumulative smoking exposure, and years since quitting smoking.
In March 2021, USPSTF has issued new recommendations with a decrease in the screening age to 50 years, and the smoking history that triggers screening to 20 pack-years (Screening for Lung Cancer: USPSTF Statement. JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325[10]:962-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117). These expanded eligibility criteria are projected to double the number of eligible candidates of LCS in the United States, reduce annual deaths by up to 50%, and benefit minorities and women. By widening the screening criteria to include younger individuals and who have smoked less tobacco, more lives will be saved by early detection of lung cancer. Since the NLST and NELSON trials enrolled relatively healthy people, USPSTF recommends discontinuation of screening once the person has not smoked for 15 years and in persons with any health problem that severely limits the life expectancy or the ability or willingness to undergo surgery. All screening programs must incorporate smoking cessation counseling and interventions for all the enrolled individuals who are current smokers. The USPSTF has also made recommendations on interventions to prevent the initiation of tobacco use in children and adolescents, including counseling and pharmacotherapy.
The decision to undergo LCS is inherently complex, and primary care and pulmonary physicians play a pivotal role by identifying the eligible patients, participating in shared decision-making (SDM), offering smoking cessation, ordering the CT, and managing follow-up. SDM between the patient and clinician includes a discussion of the benefits, risks, limitations, and potential harms of screening. The potential harms of screening include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, incidental findings, and the anxiety leading to further testing or follow-up. The risk of radiation exposure is markedly reduced using low-dose CT protocols compared with conventional chest CT. SDM visit also emphasizes the importance of adherence to annual screening and patient willingness and ability to undergo treatment if required. In 2015, CMS approved the addition of LCS counseling and SDM visits that are performed by physicians or qualified nonphysician practitioners (physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist). Studies have shown that these visits improve the screening uptake rate.
To minimize the variations in the evaluation and management of screen-detected lung nodules, the American College of Radiology (ACR) developed the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) to be used in LCS CT reports. The latest revised version 1.1 of Lung-RADS was released in 2019. The Lung-RADS defines a positive screen and provides accepted nodule care pathways depending on their size, characteristics, and additional findings, and has been shown to decrease the rate of false-positive results in LCS. To be a designated LCS center, the department of radiology must comply with stringent requirements of technical and facility specification, with radiologist qualification, and with reporting and communication as outlined by the ACR. In addition, participation in the National LCS Registry to meet CMS quality reporting requirements is mandatory for facilities to be reimbursed by CMS.
After more than 10 years since its inception, the participation in LCS has been low. Out of 8 million eligible Americans, less than 4% have been screened (American Cancer Society, NSCLC statistics 2020) compared with breast cancer (up to 75%) (Breast Cancer: Facts and Figures 2019-2020). Adherence to annual LCS between 1-3 years in the US is only about 55%. Non-White patients, current smokers, those aged 65-73 years, and those who lack a college education are most likely to be less adherent to follow-up screening. There are hurdles at multiple levels including but not limited to patient and physician awareness, patient enrollment, adherence, follow-up, and insurance coverage. Expanding the reach of LCS in socially and economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, and women has been even more challenging.
Significant differences exist in opinions and practices between primary care physicians (PCPs) and pulmonologists regarding referral for LCS and its benefits. Educational intervention at the PCP level aimed at awareness of USPSTF guidelines may improve utilization and adherence to screening. Increasing lung cancer awareness by community outreach programs, promoting related discussions, and providing information about available screening services to eligible population is crucial to derive the maximum benefits of LCS. Presenting decision aid tools on smartphones and online has shown to improve the participants’ knowledge of LCS, to reduce the decisional conflict, and to be acceptable among patients and providers. Implementation strategies such as involving a nonphysician provider, keeping the training on these tools brief and simple, and providing it to participants prior to the clinical encounter might be effective. Electronic medical record systems can be optimized to simplify the ordering procedure to ensure the eligibility criteria are met, to provide results to the physicians, and to direct further management of positive screen results. Most LCS programs have a nonphysician program coordinator to convey the results to the patients and physician, to send out reminders for scheduled follow up appointment, and to maintain the registry data.
In the future, newer imaging technology, and molecular biomarkers or other technologies to differentiate lung cancer more accurately from a benign nodule, and to determine its aggressiveness, will supplement the LCS to decrease false positive results. Better risk prediction models will influence screening eligibility and prognostication in a screen-detected cancer. Robust data collection from ongoing clinical programs will determine if the benefits of LCS seen in clinical trials are comparable when applied to diverse community settings.
Dr. Stowell and Dr. Sonavane are with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Lung cancer is the second-most common cancer and one of the leading causes of mortality in the United States among both men and women. It accounts for almost 25% of all cancer deaths, and every year more people die of lung cancer than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. The American Cancer Society estimates about 235,760 new lung cancer cases and about 131,880 deaths from lung cancer in 2021.
Smoking and increasing age are the two most important risk factors for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a higher incidence among Black men than White men, and among White women compared with Black women. These differences are likely related to smoking exposure. Early diagnosis of lung cancer can improve survival, and hence screening for lung cancer in high-risk populations is desired. Among the available cancer screening tests, radiology is primarily involved in breast and lung cancer screening (LCS). In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) showed a benefit of annual low- dose chest CT for LCS, with about 20% reduction in lung cancer-related mortality in high-risk participants compared with chest radiographs (Aberle DR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365[5]:395-409).
In 2013, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation in support of annual LCS by CT scan for individuals between the ages of 55-80 years with smoking history of 30 or more pack-years who are current smokers or had quit smoking in the last 15 years. Many other professional societies followed with their own recommendations with minor differences. In 2015, after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) decision of coverage, millions of Americans at high risk became eligible for CT LCS with no copayment or cost sharing by the patient.
The results from the European NELSON trial in 2020 augmented the NLST data showing a 24% decrease in lung cancer mortality. Nodules were measured using volume and volume doubling time rather than bidimensional axial measurements, reducing the false-positive results to 56% compared with 96% in NLST. With growing evidence of the benefits from LCS, recently USPSTF summarized with moderate certainty that annual LCS CT has moderate net benefit in people at high risk for lung cancer based on age, cumulative smoking exposure, and years since quitting smoking.
In March 2021, USPSTF has issued new recommendations with a decrease in the screening age to 50 years, and the smoking history that triggers screening to 20 pack-years (Screening for Lung Cancer: USPSTF Statement. JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325[10]:962-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1117). These expanded eligibility criteria are projected to double the number of eligible candidates of LCS in the United States, reduce annual deaths by up to 50%, and benefit minorities and women. By widening the screening criteria to include younger individuals and who have smoked less tobacco, more lives will be saved by early detection of lung cancer. Since the NLST and NELSON trials enrolled relatively healthy people, USPSTF recommends discontinuation of screening once the person has not smoked for 15 years and in persons with any health problem that severely limits the life expectancy or the ability or willingness to undergo surgery. All screening programs must incorporate smoking cessation counseling and interventions for all the enrolled individuals who are current smokers. The USPSTF has also made recommendations on interventions to prevent the initiation of tobacco use in children and adolescents, including counseling and pharmacotherapy.
The decision to undergo LCS is inherently complex, and primary care and pulmonary physicians play a pivotal role by identifying the eligible patients, participating in shared decision-making (SDM), offering smoking cessation, ordering the CT, and managing follow-up. SDM between the patient and clinician includes a discussion of the benefits, risks, limitations, and potential harms of screening. The potential harms of screening include overdiagnosis, false-positive results, incidental findings, and the anxiety leading to further testing or follow-up. The risk of radiation exposure is markedly reduced using low-dose CT protocols compared with conventional chest CT. SDM visit also emphasizes the importance of adherence to annual screening and patient willingness and ability to undergo treatment if required. In 2015, CMS approved the addition of LCS counseling and SDM visits that are performed by physicians or qualified nonphysician practitioners (physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist). Studies have shown that these visits improve the screening uptake rate.
To minimize the variations in the evaluation and management of screen-detected lung nodules, the American College of Radiology (ACR) developed the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) to be used in LCS CT reports. The latest revised version 1.1 of Lung-RADS was released in 2019. The Lung-RADS defines a positive screen and provides accepted nodule care pathways depending on their size, characteristics, and additional findings, and has been shown to decrease the rate of false-positive results in LCS. To be a designated LCS center, the department of radiology must comply with stringent requirements of technical and facility specification, with radiologist qualification, and with reporting and communication as outlined by the ACR. In addition, participation in the National LCS Registry to meet CMS quality reporting requirements is mandatory for facilities to be reimbursed by CMS.
After more than 10 years since its inception, the participation in LCS has been low. Out of 8 million eligible Americans, less than 4% have been screened (American Cancer Society, NSCLC statistics 2020) compared with breast cancer (up to 75%) (Breast Cancer: Facts and Figures 2019-2020). Adherence to annual LCS between 1-3 years in the US is only about 55%. Non-White patients, current smokers, those aged 65-73 years, and those who lack a college education are most likely to be less adherent to follow-up screening. There are hurdles at multiple levels including but not limited to patient and physician awareness, patient enrollment, adherence, follow-up, and insurance coverage. Expanding the reach of LCS in socially and economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, and women has been even more challenging.
Significant differences exist in opinions and practices between primary care physicians (PCPs) and pulmonologists regarding referral for LCS and its benefits. Educational intervention at the PCP level aimed at awareness of USPSTF guidelines may improve utilization and adherence to screening. Increasing lung cancer awareness by community outreach programs, promoting related discussions, and providing information about available screening services to eligible population is crucial to derive the maximum benefits of LCS. Presenting decision aid tools on smartphones and online has shown to improve the participants’ knowledge of LCS, to reduce the decisional conflict, and to be acceptable among patients and providers. Implementation strategies such as involving a nonphysician provider, keeping the training on these tools brief and simple, and providing it to participants prior to the clinical encounter might be effective. Electronic medical record systems can be optimized to simplify the ordering procedure to ensure the eligibility criteria are met, to provide results to the physicians, and to direct further management of positive screen results. Most LCS programs have a nonphysician program coordinator to convey the results to the patients and physician, to send out reminders for scheduled follow up appointment, and to maintain the registry data.
In the future, newer imaging technology, and molecular biomarkers or other technologies to differentiate lung cancer more accurately from a benign nodule, and to determine its aggressiveness, will supplement the LCS to decrease false positive results. Better risk prediction models will influence screening eligibility and prognostication in a screen-detected cancer. Robust data collection from ongoing clinical programs will determine if the benefits of LCS seen in clinical trials are comparable when applied to diverse community settings.
Dr. Stowell and Dr. Sonavane are with the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines
National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) published its last Expert Panel Report in 2007. Since that time, substantial progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of asthma. A new report has provided a much-needed update in the evaluation and management of asthma. It focuses on several priority topics jointly decided upon by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council Asthma Expert Working Group, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) participant organizations, and the public in 2015. These topics include the role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), allergen mitigation, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic agents (LAMA), immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in asthma management. This document did not include the subsequent new developments in the role of biologics in asthma. The following is a summary of the recommendations made in the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines.1
FeNO measurement is recommended to aid in asthma diagnosis and monitoring and to assist in ICS medication titration in individuals with asthma who are 5 years and older. The panel recommends that clinicians use FeNO levels, in conjunction with other relevant clinical data such as spirometry and asthma control questionnaires, for medical decision making. Similarly, when using FeNO to guide therapeutic changes in the ICS dose, the panel advises making changes based upon frequent measurements as a part of longitudinal assessment rather than one single measurement, as several factors can influence an FeNO measurement. Studies have demonstrated that a strategy that incorporates FeNO measurements into a treatment algorithm can reduce the risk of exacerbations; however, this has not been shown to reduce hospitalizations or quality of life.2
Allergen mitigation interventions, which can be used in individuals of all ages, are only recommended for those who have symptoms related to specific indoor aeroallergens exposure. This can be confirmed by skin testing or specific IgE in the appropriate clinical setting if specific allergen testing is not readily available. While most recommendations focus on using a multicomponent approach to allergen mitigation (ie, dust mite covers, HEPA filters, air purifiers, carpet removal, mold remediation, pest or pest removal, etc), pest removal was the only single-component approach that was deemed effective. Dust mite covers alone are unlikely to lead to significant improvement if not paired with additional mitigation strategies; however, note that there was low certainty about these recommendations. Ultimately, allergen mitigation should focus on addressing those identified triggers resulting in poor control of asthma. Simultaneously, the clinician should consider the resources and costs associated with some of these interventions.
The panel has recommended using ICS therapy for on-demand (prn) usage, even in those with mild persistent asthma, recognizing that earlier and more frequent on-demand ICS usage results in fewer exacerbations. While the recommendations slightly differ based upon the age group, in those >12 years with mild persistent asthma, recommendations are for either daily ICS + as-needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), or as-needed ICS and SABA use. As in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, the panel also recommends single maintenance and rescue therapy (SMART) using ICS-formoterol inhalers for moderate to severe asthma. SMART has also been shown to reduce the risk of exacerbation. The clinician needs to use ICS-LABA medications where formoterol is the LABA component due to its quick onset of action (within 5 minutes, hence allowing it to be used as a rescue). Shared decision-making must be utilized when considering cost, insurance formulary restrictions, and perhaps delayed insurer and pharmacy adoption of these guidelines, as patients are likely to use more than one canister in a month when utilizing SMART.3,4
LAMA is a pharmacologic class of long-acting inhaled bronchodilators. Guidelines addressed the role of LAMA in individuals aged 12 years and older. Three recommendations are made regarding the role of LAMA in this age group. In individuals with persistent, uncontrolled asthma while using ICS therapy, the guidelines recommend the addition of a LABA over LAMA therapy.5 LAMA can be added to ICS in individuals with uncontrolled asthma who cannot use LABA or are already on ICS-LABA maintenance therapy.
For those patients with mild to moderate allergic asthma, as defined by allergic sensitization via skin testing or in-vitro elevated serum IgE levels, the expert panel conditionally recommends subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) as an adjunct treatment to standard pharmacotherapy. It is recommended only in those patients whose asthma remains controlled throughout initiation, build-up, and maintenance phases. SCIT should not be used for patients with severe asthma, and all attempts should be made to optimize asthma with standard therapy first. The risks and benefits of SCIT should be discussed with the specialist before starting therapy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is not recommended for the treatment of asthma.
Regarding BT, the Expert Panel conditionally recommends against BT in individuals age 18 years and older with persistent asthma because of the small benefit to risk ratio and uncertain outcomes. Because there is a risk of worsening asthma control or inducing an exacerbation, it is advised that BT not be performed in individuals with an FEV <50%-60% or those with a history of life-threatening asthma. If BT is considered, it should be performed by an experienced specialist and should be done in conjunction with a clinical trial or registry to track its long-term safety and effectiveness.6 All efforts should be made to optimize asthma therapy and address comorbidities before pursuing BT.
This Expert Panel report provides a robust systematic review of the evidence that addresses key questions in the management of asthma. However, not providing any recommendations regarding the use of biologics was a significant gap. Further guidance regarding their role can be found in the GINA guidelines, and by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, both of which were also published in 2020.7,8Dr. Adrish is Clinical Assistant Professor, Bronx Care Health System, New York; Dr. Patil is Assistant Professor, Department of Respiratory Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), India; Dr. Oberle is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Associate Medical Director, Duke Asthma, Allergy and Airway Center, Durham, NC.
References
1. Expert Panel Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) administered and coordinated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC), et al. 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Dec;146(6):1217-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.003. PMID: 33280709; PMCID: PMC7924476.
2. Zeiger RS, Schatz M, Zhang F, et al. Association of exhaled nitric oxide to asthma burden in asthmatics on inhaled corticosteroids. J Asthma. 2011;48:8-17.
3. Bacharier LB, Phillips BR, Zeiger RS, et al. Episodic use of an inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene receptor antagonist in preschool children with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:1127-35.e8.
4. Zeiger RS, Mauger D, Bacharier LB, et al. Daily or intermittent budesonide in preschool children with recurrent wheezing. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1990-2001.
5. Wechsler ME, Yawn BP, Fuhlbrigge AL, et al. Anticholinergic vs long-acting beta-agonist in combination with inhaled corticosteroids in black adults with asthma: The BELT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1720-30.
6. Thomson NC, Rubin AS, Niven RM, et al. Long-term (5 year) safety of bronchial thermoplasty: Asthma Intervention Research (AIR) trial. BMC Pulm Med. 2011;11:8.
7. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2020.
8. Holguin F, Cardet JC, Chung KF, et al. Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline. Eur Respir J. 2020;55:1900588.
National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) published its last Expert Panel Report in 2007. Since that time, substantial progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of asthma. A new report has provided a much-needed update in the evaluation and management of asthma. It focuses on several priority topics jointly decided upon by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council Asthma Expert Working Group, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) participant organizations, and the public in 2015. These topics include the role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), allergen mitigation, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic agents (LAMA), immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in asthma management. This document did not include the subsequent new developments in the role of biologics in asthma. The following is a summary of the recommendations made in the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines.1
FeNO measurement is recommended to aid in asthma diagnosis and monitoring and to assist in ICS medication titration in individuals with asthma who are 5 years and older. The panel recommends that clinicians use FeNO levels, in conjunction with other relevant clinical data such as spirometry and asthma control questionnaires, for medical decision making. Similarly, when using FeNO to guide therapeutic changes in the ICS dose, the panel advises making changes based upon frequent measurements as a part of longitudinal assessment rather than one single measurement, as several factors can influence an FeNO measurement. Studies have demonstrated that a strategy that incorporates FeNO measurements into a treatment algorithm can reduce the risk of exacerbations; however, this has not been shown to reduce hospitalizations or quality of life.2
Allergen mitigation interventions, which can be used in individuals of all ages, are only recommended for those who have symptoms related to specific indoor aeroallergens exposure. This can be confirmed by skin testing or specific IgE in the appropriate clinical setting if specific allergen testing is not readily available. While most recommendations focus on using a multicomponent approach to allergen mitigation (ie, dust mite covers, HEPA filters, air purifiers, carpet removal, mold remediation, pest or pest removal, etc), pest removal was the only single-component approach that was deemed effective. Dust mite covers alone are unlikely to lead to significant improvement if not paired with additional mitigation strategies; however, note that there was low certainty about these recommendations. Ultimately, allergen mitigation should focus on addressing those identified triggers resulting in poor control of asthma. Simultaneously, the clinician should consider the resources and costs associated with some of these interventions.
The panel has recommended using ICS therapy for on-demand (prn) usage, even in those with mild persistent asthma, recognizing that earlier and more frequent on-demand ICS usage results in fewer exacerbations. While the recommendations slightly differ based upon the age group, in those >12 years with mild persistent asthma, recommendations are for either daily ICS + as-needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), or as-needed ICS and SABA use. As in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, the panel also recommends single maintenance and rescue therapy (SMART) using ICS-formoterol inhalers for moderate to severe asthma. SMART has also been shown to reduce the risk of exacerbation. The clinician needs to use ICS-LABA medications where formoterol is the LABA component due to its quick onset of action (within 5 minutes, hence allowing it to be used as a rescue). Shared decision-making must be utilized when considering cost, insurance formulary restrictions, and perhaps delayed insurer and pharmacy adoption of these guidelines, as patients are likely to use more than one canister in a month when utilizing SMART.3,4
LAMA is a pharmacologic class of long-acting inhaled bronchodilators. Guidelines addressed the role of LAMA in individuals aged 12 years and older. Three recommendations are made regarding the role of LAMA in this age group. In individuals with persistent, uncontrolled asthma while using ICS therapy, the guidelines recommend the addition of a LABA over LAMA therapy.5 LAMA can be added to ICS in individuals with uncontrolled asthma who cannot use LABA or are already on ICS-LABA maintenance therapy.
For those patients with mild to moderate allergic asthma, as defined by allergic sensitization via skin testing or in-vitro elevated serum IgE levels, the expert panel conditionally recommends subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) as an adjunct treatment to standard pharmacotherapy. It is recommended only in those patients whose asthma remains controlled throughout initiation, build-up, and maintenance phases. SCIT should not be used for patients with severe asthma, and all attempts should be made to optimize asthma with standard therapy first. The risks and benefits of SCIT should be discussed with the specialist before starting therapy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is not recommended for the treatment of asthma.
Regarding BT, the Expert Panel conditionally recommends against BT in individuals age 18 years and older with persistent asthma because of the small benefit to risk ratio and uncertain outcomes. Because there is a risk of worsening asthma control or inducing an exacerbation, it is advised that BT not be performed in individuals with an FEV <50%-60% or those with a history of life-threatening asthma. If BT is considered, it should be performed by an experienced specialist and should be done in conjunction with a clinical trial or registry to track its long-term safety and effectiveness.6 All efforts should be made to optimize asthma therapy and address comorbidities before pursuing BT.
This Expert Panel report provides a robust systematic review of the evidence that addresses key questions in the management of asthma. However, not providing any recommendations regarding the use of biologics was a significant gap. Further guidance regarding their role can be found in the GINA guidelines, and by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, both of which were also published in 2020.7,8Dr. Adrish is Clinical Assistant Professor, Bronx Care Health System, New York; Dr. Patil is Assistant Professor, Department of Respiratory Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), India; Dr. Oberle is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Associate Medical Director, Duke Asthma, Allergy and Airway Center, Durham, NC.
References
1. Expert Panel Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) administered and coordinated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC), et al. 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Dec;146(6):1217-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.003. PMID: 33280709; PMCID: PMC7924476.
2. Zeiger RS, Schatz M, Zhang F, et al. Association of exhaled nitric oxide to asthma burden in asthmatics on inhaled corticosteroids. J Asthma. 2011;48:8-17.
3. Bacharier LB, Phillips BR, Zeiger RS, et al. Episodic use of an inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene receptor antagonist in preschool children with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:1127-35.e8.
4. Zeiger RS, Mauger D, Bacharier LB, et al. Daily or intermittent budesonide in preschool children with recurrent wheezing. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1990-2001.
5. Wechsler ME, Yawn BP, Fuhlbrigge AL, et al. Anticholinergic vs long-acting beta-agonist in combination with inhaled corticosteroids in black adults with asthma: The BELT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1720-30.
6. Thomson NC, Rubin AS, Niven RM, et al. Long-term (5 year) safety of bronchial thermoplasty: Asthma Intervention Research (AIR) trial. BMC Pulm Med. 2011;11:8.
7. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2020.
8. Holguin F, Cardet JC, Chung KF, et al. Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline. Eur Respir J. 2020;55:1900588.
National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) published its last Expert Panel Report in 2007. Since that time, substantial progress has been made in understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of asthma. A new report has provided a much-needed update in the evaluation and management of asthma. It focuses on several priority topics jointly decided upon by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Advisory Council Asthma Expert Working Group, the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) participant organizations, and the public in 2015. These topics include the role of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), allergen mitigation, intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting muscarinic agents (LAMA), immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty (BT) in asthma management. This document did not include the subsequent new developments in the role of biologics in asthma. The following is a summary of the recommendations made in the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines.1
FeNO measurement is recommended to aid in asthma diagnosis and monitoring and to assist in ICS medication titration in individuals with asthma who are 5 years and older. The panel recommends that clinicians use FeNO levels, in conjunction with other relevant clinical data such as spirometry and asthma control questionnaires, for medical decision making. Similarly, when using FeNO to guide therapeutic changes in the ICS dose, the panel advises making changes based upon frequent measurements as a part of longitudinal assessment rather than one single measurement, as several factors can influence an FeNO measurement. Studies have demonstrated that a strategy that incorporates FeNO measurements into a treatment algorithm can reduce the risk of exacerbations; however, this has not been shown to reduce hospitalizations or quality of life.2
Allergen mitigation interventions, which can be used in individuals of all ages, are only recommended for those who have symptoms related to specific indoor aeroallergens exposure. This can be confirmed by skin testing or specific IgE in the appropriate clinical setting if specific allergen testing is not readily available. While most recommendations focus on using a multicomponent approach to allergen mitigation (ie, dust mite covers, HEPA filters, air purifiers, carpet removal, mold remediation, pest or pest removal, etc), pest removal was the only single-component approach that was deemed effective. Dust mite covers alone are unlikely to lead to significant improvement if not paired with additional mitigation strategies; however, note that there was low certainty about these recommendations. Ultimately, allergen mitigation should focus on addressing those identified triggers resulting in poor control of asthma. Simultaneously, the clinician should consider the resources and costs associated with some of these interventions.
The panel has recommended using ICS therapy for on-demand (prn) usage, even in those with mild persistent asthma, recognizing that earlier and more frequent on-demand ICS usage results in fewer exacerbations. While the recommendations slightly differ based upon the age group, in those >12 years with mild persistent asthma, recommendations are for either daily ICS + as-needed short-acting beta-agonist (SABA), or as-needed ICS and SABA use. As in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, the panel also recommends single maintenance and rescue therapy (SMART) using ICS-formoterol inhalers for moderate to severe asthma. SMART has also been shown to reduce the risk of exacerbation. The clinician needs to use ICS-LABA medications where formoterol is the LABA component due to its quick onset of action (within 5 minutes, hence allowing it to be used as a rescue). Shared decision-making must be utilized when considering cost, insurance formulary restrictions, and perhaps delayed insurer and pharmacy adoption of these guidelines, as patients are likely to use more than one canister in a month when utilizing SMART.3,4
LAMA is a pharmacologic class of long-acting inhaled bronchodilators. Guidelines addressed the role of LAMA in individuals aged 12 years and older. Three recommendations are made regarding the role of LAMA in this age group. In individuals with persistent, uncontrolled asthma while using ICS therapy, the guidelines recommend the addition of a LABA over LAMA therapy.5 LAMA can be added to ICS in individuals with uncontrolled asthma who cannot use LABA or are already on ICS-LABA maintenance therapy.
For those patients with mild to moderate allergic asthma, as defined by allergic sensitization via skin testing or in-vitro elevated serum IgE levels, the expert panel conditionally recommends subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) as an adjunct treatment to standard pharmacotherapy. It is recommended only in those patients whose asthma remains controlled throughout initiation, build-up, and maintenance phases. SCIT should not be used for patients with severe asthma, and all attempts should be made to optimize asthma with standard therapy first. The risks and benefits of SCIT should be discussed with the specialist before starting therapy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is not recommended for the treatment of asthma.
Regarding BT, the Expert Panel conditionally recommends against BT in individuals age 18 years and older with persistent asthma because of the small benefit to risk ratio and uncertain outcomes. Because there is a risk of worsening asthma control or inducing an exacerbation, it is advised that BT not be performed in individuals with an FEV <50%-60% or those with a history of life-threatening asthma. If BT is considered, it should be performed by an experienced specialist and should be done in conjunction with a clinical trial or registry to track its long-term safety and effectiveness.6 All efforts should be made to optimize asthma therapy and address comorbidities before pursuing BT.
This Expert Panel report provides a robust systematic review of the evidence that addresses key questions in the management of asthma. However, not providing any recommendations regarding the use of biologics was a significant gap. Further guidance regarding their role can be found in the GINA guidelines, and by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, both of which were also published in 2020.7,8Dr. Adrish is Clinical Assistant Professor, Bronx Care Health System, New York; Dr. Patil is Assistant Professor, Department of Respiratory Sleep and Critical Care Medicine, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS), India; Dr. Oberle is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Associate Medical Director, Duke Asthma, Allergy and Airway Center, Durham, NC.
References
1. Expert Panel Working Group of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) administered and coordinated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee (NAEPPCC), et al. 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020 Dec;146(6):1217-1270. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.003. PMID: 33280709; PMCID: PMC7924476.
2. Zeiger RS, Schatz M, Zhang F, et al. Association of exhaled nitric oxide to asthma burden in asthmatics on inhaled corticosteroids. J Asthma. 2011;48:8-17.
3. Bacharier LB, Phillips BR, Zeiger RS, et al. Episodic use of an inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene receptor antagonist in preschool children with moderate-to-severe intermittent wheezing. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:1127-35.e8.
4. Zeiger RS, Mauger D, Bacharier LB, et al. Daily or intermittent budesonide in preschool children with recurrent wheezing. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1990-2001.
5. Wechsler ME, Yawn BP, Fuhlbrigge AL, et al. Anticholinergic vs long-acting beta-agonist in combination with inhaled corticosteroids in black adults with asthma: The BELT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:1720-30.
6. Thomson NC, Rubin AS, Niven RM, et al. Long-term (5 year) safety of bronchial thermoplasty: Asthma Intervention Research (AIR) trial. BMC Pulm Med. 2011;11:8.
7. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2020.
8. Holguin F, Cardet JC, Chung KF, et al. Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline. Eur Respir J. 2020;55:1900588.
Bronchiolitis: Rare diseases, diagnostic challenges, and few proven therapies
What’s in a name?
Bronchiolitis, a group of diseases also referred to as “small airways diseases,” is characterized by inflammation and/or fibrosis in airways less than 2 mm in diameter. In pediatric patients, it is most commonly related to acute viral infections, while in adults, it is often associated with chronic diseases. Bronchiolitis is a well-recognized complication in a significant number of patients who have undergone lung or stem cell transplantation. Common associations also include connective tissue diseases, environmental or occupational inhalation exposures, aspiration, drug toxicity, and infections. Diagnosing bronchiolitis can be challenging for clinicians, and few treatment options exist apart from treating identifiable underlying etiologies. More research is needed into noninvasive diagnostic techniques and treatment modalities.
The terminology used to describe bronchiolitis has evolved over time. Bronchiolitis is now used to describe conditions where the primary pathologic condition is damage to the bronchiolar epithelium not attributable to a larger parenchymal disease (such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis). This change in nomenclature explains why the condition formerly known as “bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia” (BOOP) is now simply recognized as “organizing pneumonia.” Despite several proposed classification schemes focusing on histopathology, there is no consensus regarding the different subtypes of bronchiolitis, leading to confusion in some cases. Recently, authors have attempted to distinguish cases based on three main histologic patterns (Urisman A, et al. Surg Pathol Clin. 2020;13[1]:189).
- Obliterative/constrictive bronchiolitis (OB) – the terms “obliterative” and “constrictive” are used interchangeably throughout pulmonary literature. It is characterized by fibroblast-rich tissue accumulation in the sub-epithelium of bronchioles leading to progressive narrowing of the lumen. In addition to the transplant setting, it is often seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or other connective tissue diseases, inhalational exposures, or acute respiratory infections. More recently, clinicians have recognized diffuse idiopathic pulmonary neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia (DIPNECH) as a rare condition causing OB with potentially effective treatment.
- Follicular bronchiolitis (FB) – features peribronchiolar inflammation with subepithelial lymphoid deposits leading to luminal obstruction. FB is chiefly associated with conditions of impaired immunity or chronic airway infection, such as autoimmune connective tissues diseases (especially rheumatoid arthritis and Sjogren’s), severe combined immunodeficiency, HIV, cystic fibrosis, and primary ciliary dyskinesia.
- Diffuse panbronchiolitis (DBP) – features bilateral bronchiolar lesions with lymphocytic inflammation of the bronchiolar wall, as well as peribronchiolar inflammation and accumulation of interstitial foamy macrophages. Patients afflicted with DBP may suffer repeated bacterial colonization or infection. There is a higher prevalence of DBP in Asia where it was first identified in the 1960s, potentially due to several HLA alleles that are more common in Asia.
In addition to the above terminology, the transplant-setting diagnosis “bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome” (BOS) is used to denote progressive obstructive lung disease for which there is not another cause aside from chronic graft rejection. For these patients, clinicians assume the underlying disease entity is OB, but they often lack histopathologic confirmation.
Diagnosis is challenging
Symptoms of bronchiolitis are typically dyspnea and cough, and patients may often be diagnosed with asthma or COPD initially. Pulmonary function testing may show signs of obstruction, restriction, or mixed disease with or without a reduction in Dlco. Chest radiography often appears normal, but high-resolution CT may show expiratory air trapping and centrilobular nodules. Advanced imaging modalities may augment or replace CT imaging in diagnosing bronchiolitis: investigators are evaluating pulmonary MRI and fluoroscopy with computerized ventilation analysis in clinical trials (NCT04080232).
Currently, open or thoracoscopic lung biopsy is typically required to make a definitive diagnosis. Because bronchiolitis is a patchy and heterogeneous process, transbronchial biopsy may provide insufficient yield, with a sensitivity of 29% to 70% reported in lung transplant literature (Urisman A, et al. Surg Pathol Clin. 2020;13[1]:189).
Recent studies have demonstrated transbronchial cryobiopsy to be a promising alternative to surgical biopsy, owing to larger tissue samples than conventional transbronchial lung biopsies. For example, in a recent case series four patients underwent transbronchial cryobiopsy. The procedure yielded adequate tissue for diagnosis of a chronic bronchiolitis in each case (Yamakawa H, et al. Internal Med Advance Publication. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.6028-20.
Treatment options are growing
Evidence for treatment of bronchiolitis remains limited. Options are extrapolated from lung transplant patients, where incidence of BOS ranges from 50% at 5 years to 76% at 10 years post transplant. Guidelines recommend a 3-month minimum trial of azithromycin, which has been shown to slow or reverse decline of lung function in some patients. Modification of immunosuppression is also recommended. In patients who have continued lung function decline, a systematic review concluded that extracorporeal photopheresis had the most robust evidence for efficacy with stabilized lung function and improved overall survival (Benden C, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[9]:921). Other salvage therapies that have lower-quality evidence of benefit include total lymphoid irradiation, montelukast, and aerosolized cyclosporine.
In patients who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant, steroids are typically the first line treatment for OB as it is thought to be a form of chronic graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, demonstrated significant improvement overall in patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD in a recent randomized clinical trial, although the trial did not examine its effect on pulmonary manifestations (Zeiser R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382[19]:1800). To date, retrospective observational studies of ruxolitinib in patients with lung GVHD have shown conflicting results regarding benefit. Investigators are currently studying ruxolitinib in a phase II trial for patients with BOS following stem cell transplant (NCT03674047).
DIPNECH is unique from other bronchiolitis entities, as small airways dysfunction develops as a result of neuroendocrine cell proliferation in the airway mucosa, ultimately leading to bronchial narrowing. It most commonly presents in middle-aged nonsmoking women with years of chronic cough and dyspnea. While it has an indolent course in many patients, some patients develop progressive symptoms and obstructive lung disease. DIPNECH is considered a precursor to other pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. The lesions demonstrate somatostatin receptor expression in many cases, prompting the use of somatostatin analogues as treatment. In the largest published case series, 42 patients from three different institutions were identified who were treated with somatostatin analogues for a mean of 38.8 months at the time of review. Symptomatic improvement was seen in 33 of the 42 (79%), and of the 15 with posttreatment PFT data, 14 (93%) showed improvement in PFTs (Al-Toubah, T, et al. Chest. 2020;158[1]:401). Other small studies have demonstrated varying results with symptomatic improvement in 29% to 76% of patients and improvement or stability of PFTs in 50% to 100% of patients (Samhouri BF, et al. ERJ Open Res. 2020;6[4]:527).
For patients who have not undergone lung transplant, and who do not have an identifiable exposure or underlying rheumatologic condition, a similar 3-month minimum trial of macrolide antibiotics is reasonable. Macrolides have been shown to double long-term survival rates to over 90% in patients with DPB. Evidence in this patient population is quite limited, and further research is needed to determine effective therapies for patients.
What’s next for bronchiolitis
While clinicians currently have few tools for diagnosing and treating these uncommon diseases, in the coming years, we should learn whether novel imaging modalities or less invasive procedures can aid in the diagnosis. Physicians hope these advances will preclude the need for invasive biopsies in more patients going forward. We should also learn whether newer, targeted agents like ruxolitinib are effective for BOS in patients with stem cell transplant. If so, this finding may open it and similar agents to investigation in other forms of bronchiolitis.
Dr. Poole and Dr. Callahan are with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah.
What’s in a name?
Bronchiolitis, a group of diseases also referred to as “small airways diseases,” is characterized by inflammation and/or fibrosis in airways less than 2 mm in diameter. In pediatric patients, it is most commonly related to acute viral infections, while in adults, it is often associated with chronic diseases. Bronchiolitis is a well-recognized complication in a significant number of patients who have undergone lung or stem cell transplantation. Common associations also include connective tissue diseases, environmental or occupational inhalation exposures, aspiration, drug toxicity, and infections. Diagnosing bronchiolitis can be challenging for clinicians, and few treatment options exist apart from treating identifiable underlying etiologies. More research is needed into noninvasive diagnostic techniques and treatment modalities.
The terminology used to describe bronchiolitis has evolved over time. Bronchiolitis is now used to describe conditions where the primary pathologic condition is damage to the bronchiolar epithelium not attributable to a larger parenchymal disease (such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis). This change in nomenclature explains why the condition formerly known as “bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia” (BOOP) is now simply recognized as “organizing pneumonia.” Despite several proposed classification schemes focusing on histopathology, there is no consensus regarding the different subtypes of bronchiolitis, leading to confusion in some cases. Recently, authors have attempted to distinguish cases based on three main histologic patterns (Urisman A, et al. Surg Pathol Clin. 2020;13[1]:189).
- Obliterative/constrictive bronchiolitis (OB) – the terms “obliterative” and “constrictive” are used interchangeably throughout pulmonary literature. It is characterized by fibroblast-rich tissue accumulation in the sub-epithelium of bronchioles leading to progressive narrowing of the lumen. In addition to the transplant setting, it is often seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or other connective tissue diseases, inhalational exposures, or acute respiratory infections. More recently, clinicians have recognized diffuse idiopathic pulmonary neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia (DIPNECH) as a rare condition causing OB with potentially effective treatment.
- Follicular bronchiolitis (FB) – features peribronchiolar inflammation with subepithelial lymphoid deposits leading to luminal obstruction. FB is chiefly associated with conditions of impaired immunity or chronic airway infection, such as autoimmune connective tissues diseases (especially rheumatoid arthritis and Sjogren’s), severe combined immunodeficiency, HIV, cystic fibrosis, and primary ciliary dyskinesia.
- Diffuse panbronchiolitis (DBP) – features bilateral bronchiolar lesions with lymphocytic inflammation of the bronchiolar wall, as well as peribronchiolar inflammation and accumulation of interstitial foamy macrophages. Patients afflicted with DBP may suffer repeated bacterial colonization or infection. There is a higher prevalence of DBP in Asia where it was first identified in the 1960s, potentially due to several HLA alleles that are more common in Asia.
In addition to the above terminology, the transplant-setting diagnosis “bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome” (BOS) is used to denote progressive obstructive lung disease for which there is not another cause aside from chronic graft rejection. For these patients, clinicians assume the underlying disease entity is OB, but they often lack histopathologic confirmation.
Diagnosis is challenging
Symptoms of bronchiolitis are typically dyspnea and cough, and patients may often be diagnosed with asthma or COPD initially. Pulmonary function testing may show signs of obstruction, restriction, or mixed disease with or without a reduction in Dlco. Chest radiography often appears normal, but high-resolution CT may show expiratory air trapping and centrilobular nodules. Advanced imaging modalities may augment or replace CT imaging in diagnosing bronchiolitis: investigators are evaluating pulmonary MRI and fluoroscopy with computerized ventilation analysis in clinical trials (NCT04080232).
Currently, open or thoracoscopic lung biopsy is typically required to make a definitive diagnosis. Because bronchiolitis is a patchy and heterogeneous process, transbronchial biopsy may provide insufficient yield, with a sensitivity of 29% to 70% reported in lung transplant literature (Urisman A, et al. Surg Pathol Clin. 2020;13[1]:189).
Recent studies have demonstrated transbronchial cryobiopsy to be a promising alternative to surgical biopsy, owing to larger tissue samples than conventional transbronchial lung biopsies. For example, in a recent case series four patients underwent transbronchial cryobiopsy. The procedure yielded adequate tissue for diagnosis of a chronic bronchiolitis in each case (Yamakawa H, et al. Internal Med Advance Publication. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.6028-20.
Treatment options are growing
Evidence for treatment of bronchiolitis remains limited. Options are extrapolated from lung transplant patients, where incidence of BOS ranges from 50% at 5 years to 76% at 10 years post transplant. Guidelines recommend a 3-month minimum trial of azithromycin, which has been shown to slow or reverse decline of lung function in some patients. Modification of immunosuppression is also recommended. In patients who have continued lung function decline, a systematic review concluded that extracorporeal photopheresis had the most robust evidence for efficacy with stabilized lung function and improved overall survival (Benden C, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[9]:921). Other salvage therapies that have lower-quality evidence of benefit include total lymphoid irradiation, montelukast, and aerosolized cyclosporine.
In patients who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant, steroids are typically the first line treatment for OB as it is thought to be a form of chronic graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, demonstrated significant improvement overall in patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD in a recent randomized clinical trial, although the trial did not examine its effect on pulmonary manifestations (Zeiser R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382[19]:1800). To date, retrospective observational studies of ruxolitinib in patients with lung GVHD have shown conflicting results regarding benefit. Investigators are currently studying ruxolitinib in a phase II trial for patients with BOS following stem cell transplant (NCT03674047).
DIPNECH is unique from other bronchiolitis entities, as small airways dysfunction develops as a result of neuroendocrine cell proliferation in the airway mucosa, ultimately leading to bronchial narrowing. It most commonly presents in middle-aged nonsmoking women with years of chronic cough and dyspnea. While it has an indolent course in many patients, some patients develop progressive symptoms and obstructive lung disease. DIPNECH is considered a precursor to other pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. The lesions demonstrate somatostatin receptor expression in many cases, prompting the use of somatostatin analogues as treatment. In the largest published case series, 42 patients from three different institutions were identified who were treated with somatostatin analogues for a mean of 38.8 months at the time of review. Symptomatic improvement was seen in 33 of the 42 (79%), and of the 15 with posttreatment PFT data, 14 (93%) showed improvement in PFTs (Al-Toubah, T, et al. Chest. 2020;158[1]:401). Other small studies have demonstrated varying results with symptomatic improvement in 29% to 76% of patients and improvement or stability of PFTs in 50% to 100% of patients (Samhouri BF, et al. ERJ Open Res. 2020;6[4]:527).
For patients who have not undergone lung transplant, and who do not have an identifiable exposure or underlying rheumatologic condition, a similar 3-month minimum trial of macrolide antibiotics is reasonable. Macrolides have been shown to double long-term survival rates to over 90% in patients with DPB. Evidence in this patient population is quite limited, and further research is needed to determine effective therapies for patients.
What’s next for bronchiolitis
While clinicians currently have few tools for diagnosing and treating these uncommon diseases, in the coming years, we should learn whether novel imaging modalities or less invasive procedures can aid in the diagnosis. Physicians hope these advances will preclude the need for invasive biopsies in more patients going forward. We should also learn whether newer, targeted agents like ruxolitinib are effective for BOS in patients with stem cell transplant. If so, this finding may open it and similar agents to investigation in other forms of bronchiolitis.
Dr. Poole and Dr. Callahan are with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah.
What’s in a name?
Bronchiolitis, a group of diseases also referred to as “small airways diseases,” is characterized by inflammation and/or fibrosis in airways less than 2 mm in diameter. In pediatric patients, it is most commonly related to acute viral infections, while in adults, it is often associated with chronic diseases. Bronchiolitis is a well-recognized complication in a significant number of patients who have undergone lung or stem cell transplantation. Common associations also include connective tissue diseases, environmental or occupational inhalation exposures, aspiration, drug toxicity, and infections. Diagnosing bronchiolitis can be challenging for clinicians, and few treatment options exist apart from treating identifiable underlying etiologies. More research is needed into noninvasive diagnostic techniques and treatment modalities.
The terminology used to describe bronchiolitis has evolved over time. Bronchiolitis is now used to describe conditions where the primary pathologic condition is damage to the bronchiolar epithelium not attributable to a larger parenchymal disease (such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis). This change in nomenclature explains why the condition formerly known as “bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia” (BOOP) is now simply recognized as “organizing pneumonia.” Despite several proposed classification schemes focusing on histopathology, there is no consensus regarding the different subtypes of bronchiolitis, leading to confusion in some cases. Recently, authors have attempted to distinguish cases based on three main histologic patterns (Urisman A, et al. Surg Pathol Clin. 2020;13[1]:189).
- Obliterative/constrictive bronchiolitis (OB) – the terms “obliterative” and “constrictive” are used interchangeably throughout pulmonary literature. It is characterized by fibroblast-rich tissue accumulation in the sub-epithelium of bronchioles leading to progressive narrowing of the lumen. In addition to the transplant setting, it is often seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or other connective tissue diseases, inhalational exposures, or acute respiratory infections. More recently, clinicians have recognized diffuse idiopathic pulmonary neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia (DIPNECH) as a rare condition causing OB with potentially effective treatment.
- Follicular bronchiolitis (FB) – features peribronchiolar inflammation with subepithelial lymphoid deposits leading to luminal obstruction. FB is chiefly associated with conditions of impaired immunity or chronic airway infection, such as autoimmune connective tissues diseases (especially rheumatoid arthritis and Sjogren’s), severe combined immunodeficiency, HIV, cystic fibrosis, and primary ciliary dyskinesia.
- Diffuse panbronchiolitis (DBP) – features bilateral bronchiolar lesions with lymphocytic inflammation of the bronchiolar wall, as well as peribronchiolar inflammation and accumulation of interstitial foamy macrophages. Patients afflicted with DBP may suffer repeated bacterial colonization or infection. There is a higher prevalence of DBP in Asia where it was first identified in the 1960s, potentially due to several HLA alleles that are more common in Asia.
In addition to the above terminology, the transplant-setting diagnosis “bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome” (BOS) is used to denote progressive obstructive lung disease for which there is not another cause aside from chronic graft rejection. For these patients, clinicians assume the underlying disease entity is OB, but they often lack histopathologic confirmation.
Diagnosis is challenging
Symptoms of bronchiolitis are typically dyspnea and cough, and patients may often be diagnosed with asthma or COPD initially. Pulmonary function testing may show signs of obstruction, restriction, or mixed disease with or without a reduction in Dlco. Chest radiography often appears normal, but high-resolution CT may show expiratory air trapping and centrilobular nodules. Advanced imaging modalities may augment or replace CT imaging in diagnosing bronchiolitis: investigators are evaluating pulmonary MRI and fluoroscopy with computerized ventilation analysis in clinical trials (NCT04080232).
Currently, open or thoracoscopic lung biopsy is typically required to make a definitive diagnosis. Because bronchiolitis is a patchy and heterogeneous process, transbronchial biopsy may provide insufficient yield, with a sensitivity of 29% to 70% reported in lung transplant literature (Urisman A, et al. Surg Pathol Clin. 2020;13[1]:189).
Recent studies have demonstrated transbronchial cryobiopsy to be a promising alternative to surgical biopsy, owing to larger tissue samples than conventional transbronchial lung biopsies. For example, in a recent case series four patients underwent transbronchial cryobiopsy. The procedure yielded adequate tissue for diagnosis of a chronic bronchiolitis in each case (Yamakawa H, et al. Internal Med Advance Publication. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.6028-20.
Treatment options are growing
Evidence for treatment of bronchiolitis remains limited. Options are extrapolated from lung transplant patients, where incidence of BOS ranges from 50% at 5 years to 76% at 10 years post transplant. Guidelines recommend a 3-month minimum trial of azithromycin, which has been shown to slow or reverse decline of lung function in some patients. Modification of immunosuppression is also recommended. In patients who have continued lung function decline, a systematic review concluded that extracorporeal photopheresis had the most robust evidence for efficacy with stabilized lung function and improved overall survival (Benden C, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[9]:921). Other salvage therapies that have lower-quality evidence of benefit include total lymphoid irradiation, montelukast, and aerosolized cyclosporine.
In patients who have undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant, steroids are typically the first line treatment for OB as it is thought to be a form of chronic graft-vs-host disease (GVHD). Ruxolitinib, a selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, demonstrated significant improvement overall in patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD in a recent randomized clinical trial, although the trial did not examine its effect on pulmonary manifestations (Zeiser R, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382[19]:1800). To date, retrospective observational studies of ruxolitinib in patients with lung GVHD have shown conflicting results regarding benefit. Investigators are currently studying ruxolitinib in a phase II trial for patients with BOS following stem cell transplant (NCT03674047).
DIPNECH is unique from other bronchiolitis entities, as small airways dysfunction develops as a result of neuroendocrine cell proliferation in the airway mucosa, ultimately leading to bronchial narrowing. It most commonly presents in middle-aged nonsmoking women with years of chronic cough and dyspnea. While it has an indolent course in many patients, some patients develop progressive symptoms and obstructive lung disease. DIPNECH is considered a precursor to other pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. The lesions demonstrate somatostatin receptor expression in many cases, prompting the use of somatostatin analogues as treatment. In the largest published case series, 42 patients from three different institutions were identified who were treated with somatostatin analogues for a mean of 38.8 months at the time of review. Symptomatic improvement was seen in 33 of the 42 (79%), and of the 15 with posttreatment PFT data, 14 (93%) showed improvement in PFTs (Al-Toubah, T, et al. Chest. 2020;158[1]:401). Other small studies have demonstrated varying results with symptomatic improvement in 29% to 76% of patients and improvement or stability of PFTs in 50% to 100% of patients (Samhouri BF, et al. ERJ Open Res. 2020;6[4]:527).
For patients who have not undergone lung transplant, and who do not have an identifiable exposure or underlying rheumatologic condition, a similar 3-month minimum trial of macrolide antibiotics is reasonable. Macrolides have been shown to double long-term survival rates to over 90% in patients with DPB. Evidence in this patient population is quite limited, and further research is needed to determine effective therapies for patients.
What’s next for bronchiolitis
While clinicians currently have few tools for diagnosing and treating these uncommon diseases, in the coming years, we should learn whether novel imaging modalities or less invasive procedures can aid in the diagnosis. Physicians hope these advances will preclude the need for invasive biopsies in more patients going forward. We should also learn whether newer, targeted agents like ruxolitinib are effective for BOS in patients with stem cell transplant. If so, this finding may open it and similar agents to investigation in other forms of bronchiolitis.
Dr. Poole and Dr. Callahan are with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Options grow for interstitial lung disease other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Care of the patient with a fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) presents constant challenges not just in the diagnosis of ILD but in the choice of treatment. Since the FDA approval of both nintedanib and pirfenidone for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 2014, interest has grown for their employ in treating other non-IPF ILDs. This is especially true in cases with the pattern of radiographic or histopathological disease is similar to IPF – a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern – despite not meeting criteria for an IPF diagnosis due to the identification of a predisposing etiology. As research evolves, clinicians may have more options to fight the vast variety of fibrosing ILDs encountered in practice.
In 2014, the publication of separate clinical trials of nintedanib and pirfenidone in patients with IPF marked a new beginning in the treatment of this disease. Nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with multiple targets, was shown to decrease progression of disease as measured by the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) (Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 May;370[22]:2071-82). Pirfenidone, whose antifibrotic mechanisms are not completely understood, similarly slowed disease progression via a decrease in the percent change of predicted FVC (Lederer DJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 May;370[19]:2083-92). Clinicians were now armed with two therapeutic options following the subsequent FDA approval of both drugs for the treatment of IPF. This represented a giant leap forward in the management of the disease, as prior to 2014 the only available options were supportive care and lung transplant for appropriate candidates.
As IPF represents but 20% of ILDs in the United States, a significant proportion of diseases were left without an antifibrotic option after the arrival of nintedanib and pirfenidone. (Lederer DJ. N Engl J Med. 2018 May;378:1811-23). For the others, such as chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and the many connective tissue disease-associated ILDs, treatment revolved around a variety of anti-inflammatory pharmaceuticals. Common treatment choices include corticosteroids, mycophenolate, and azathioprine. The data in support of these treatments for non-IPF ILD is comparatively lean in contrast to the more robust pirfenidone and nintedanib IPF trials.
One notable exception includes the Scleroderma Lung Studies. In Scleroderma Lung Study II (SLS II), 142 patients with scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease were randomized to oral mycophenolate for 24 months vs oral cyclophosphamide for 12 months plus placebo for 12 months (Tashkin DP, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Sep;4(9):708-19). The 2006 Scleroderma Lung Study established oral cyclophosphamide in scleroderma lung disease as a reasonable standard of care after demonstrating a slowing of disease progression after 12 months of therapy (Tashkin DP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun;354[25]:2655-66). In SLS II, both cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate improved lung function at 24 months, but mycophenolate was better tolerated with less toxicity.
Other supportive data for immunosuppressive treatments for non-IPF ILD rely heavily on smaller studies, case reports, and retrospective reviews. Choices of who and when to treat are often unclear and typically come from physician preferences and patient values discussions. In the cases of connective tissue disease-associated ILD, patients may already require treatment for the underlying condition. And, while some therapies could be beneficial in a concurrent manner for a patient’s lung disease, many others are not (TNF-alpha antibody therapy, for example).
A major step forward for patients with scleroderma lung disease came with the publication of the SENSCIS trial (Oliver D, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun;380:2518-28). A total of 576 patients with scleroderma of recent onset (< 7 years) and at least 10% fibrosis on chest CT were randomized to receive either nintedanib or placebo. Patients were allowed to be supported by other therapies at stable doses prior to enrollment, and as such almost half of the patients were receiving mycophenolate. A significant improvement in annual FVC decline was reported in the treatment group, although the effect was tempered in the subgroup analysis when considering patients already on mycophenolate. Thus, the role of nintedanib in patients taking mycophenolate is less clear.
An ongoing study may clarify the role of mycophenolate and antifibrotic therapy in these patients. The phase 2 Scleroderma Lung Study III has a planned enrollment of 150 patients who are either treatment-naïve or only recently started on therapy (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03221257). Patients are randomized to mycophenolate plus pirfenidone vs mycophenolate plus placebo, and the treatment phase will last 18 months. The primary outcome is change in baseline FVC. This trial design will hopefully answer whether the combination of an antifibrotic with an anti-inflammatory medication is superior to the anti-inflammatory therapy alone, in patients with at least some evidence of inflammation (ground-glass opacifications) on high-resolution CT scan (HRCT).
In ILD other than that associated with scleroderma, nintedanib was again explored in a large randomized controlled clinical trial. In INBUILD, 663 patients with progressive ILD not caused by IPF or scleroderma were randomized to nintedanib vs placebo for one year (Flaherty KR. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep;381:1718-27). A majority of the patients (62%) had a UIP pattern on CT scan. There was overall improvement in the annual rate of decline in FVC in the treatment group, especially in the pr-determined subgroup of patients with a UIP pattern. The most common ILDs in the study were chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and that associated with connective tissue disease.
Pirfenidone is also being studied in multiple trials for various types of non-IPF ILD. Studies are either completed and nearing publication, or are ongoing. Some examples include the TRAIL1 study examining pirfenidone vs placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02808871), and the phase 2 RELIEF study that explores pirfenidone vs placebo in patients with progressive ILD from a variety of etiologies.
As more clinical trials are published, clinicians are now facing a different dilemma. Whereas the options for treatment were limited to only various anti-inflammatory medications in past years for patients with non-IPF ILDs, the growing body of literature supporting antifibrotics present a new therapeutic avenue to explore. Which patients should be started on anti-inflammatory medications, and which should start antifibrotics? Those questions may never be answered satisfactorily in clinical trials. Mycophenolate has become so entrenched in many treatment plans, enrollment into such a study comparing the two therapeutic classes head-to-head would be challenging.
However, a consideration of the specific phenotype of the patient’s ILD is a suggested approach that comes from clinical experience. Patients with more inflammatory changes on CT scan, such as more ground glass opacifications or a non-UIP pattern, might benefit from initiation of anti-inflammatory therapies such as a combination of corticosteroids and mycophenolate. Conversely, initiating antifibrotic therapy upfront, with or without concomitant mycophenolate, is a consideration if the pattern of disease is consistent with UIP on CT scan.
Ultimately, referral to a dedicated interstitial lung disease center for expert evaluation and multidisciplinary discussion may be warranted to sift through these difficult situations, especially as the field of research grows more robust. In any event, the future for patients with these diseases, though still challenged, is brighter than before.
Dr. Kershaw is Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He is the current section editor for Pulmonary
Perpsectives®and Vice Chair of the Interstitial and Diffuse Lung Disease NetWork at CHEST.
Care of the patient with a fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) presents constant challenges not just in the diagnosis of ILD but in the choice of treatment. Since the FDA approval of both nintedanib and pirfenidone for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 2014, interest has grown for their employ in treating other non-IPF ILDs. This is especially true in cases with the pattern of radiographic or histopathological disease is similar to IPF – a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern – despite not meeting criteria for an IPF diagnosis due to the identification of a predisposing etiology. As research evolves, clinicians may have more options to fight the vast variety of fibrosing ILDs encountered in practice.
In 2014, the publication of separate clinical trials of nintedanib and pirfenidone in patients with IPF marked a new beginning in the treatment of this disease. Nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with multiple targets, was shown to decrease progression of disease as measured by the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) (Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 May;370[22]:2071-82). Pirfenidone, whose antifibrotic mechanisms are not completely understood, similarly slowed disease progression via a decrease in the percent change of predicted FVC (Lederer DJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 May;370[19]:2083-92). Clinicians were now armed with two therapeutic options following the subsequent FDA approval of both drugs for the treatment of IPF. This represented a giant leap forward in the management of the disease, as prior to 2014 the only available options were supportive care and lung transplant for appropriate candidates.
As IPF represents but 20% of ILDs in the United States, a significant proportion of diseases were left without an antifibrotic option after the arrival of nintedanib and pirfenidone. (Lederer DJ. N Engl J Med. 2018 May;378:1811-23). For the others, such as chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and the many connective tissue disease-associated ILDs, treatment revolved around a variety of anti-inflammatory pharmaceuticals. Common treatment choices include corticosteroids, mycophenolate, and azathioprine. The data in support of these treatments for non-IPF ILD is comparatively lean in contrast to the more robust pirfenidone and nintedanib IPF trials.
One notable exception includes the Scleroderma Lung Studies. In Scleroderma Lung Study II (SLS II), 142 patients with scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease were randomized to oral mycophenolate for 24 months vs oral cyclophosphamide for 12 months plus placebo for 12 months (Tashkin DP, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Sep;4(9):708-19). The 2006 Scleroderma Lung Study established oral cyclophosphamide in scleroderma lung disease as a reasonable standard of care after demonstrating a slowing of disease progression after 12 months of therapy (Tashkin DP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun;354[25]:2655-66). In SLS II, both cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate improved lung function at 24 months, but mycophenolate was better tolerated with less toxicity.
Other supportive data for immunosuppressive treatments for non-IPF ILD rely heavily on smaller studies, case reports, and retrospective reviews. Choices of who and when to treat are often unclear and typically come from physician preferences and patient values discussions. In the cases of connective tissue disease-associated ILD, patients may already require treatment for the underlying condition. And, while some therapies could be beneficial in a concurrent manner for a patient’s lung disease, many others are not (TNF-alpha antibody therapy, for example).
A major step forward for patients with scleroderma lung disease came with the publication of the SENSCIS trial (Oliver D, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun;380:2518-28). A total of 576 patients with scleroderma of recent onset (< 7 years) and at least 10% fibrosis on chest CT were randomized to receive either nintedanib or placebo. Patients were allowed to be supported by other therapies at stable doses prior to enrollment, and as such almost half of the patients were receiving mycophenolate. A significant improvement in annual FVC decline was reported in the treatment group, although the effect was tempered in the subgroup analysis when considering patients already on mycophenolate. Thus, the role of nintedanib in patients taking mycophenolate is less clear.
An ongoing study may clarify the role of mycophenolate and antifibrotic therapy in these patients. The phase 2 Scleroderma Lung Study III has a planned enrollment of 150 patients who are either treatment-naïve or only recently started on therapy (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03221257). Patients are randomized to mycophenolate plus pirfenidone vs mycophenolate plus placebo, and the treatment phase will last 18 months. The primary outcome is change in baseline FVC. This trial design will hopefully answer whether the combination of an antifibrotic with an anti-inflammatory medication is superior to the anti-inflammatory therapy alone, in patients with at least some evidence of inflammation (ground-glass opacifications) on high-resolution CT scan (HRCT).
In ILD other than that associated with scleroderma, nintedanib was again explored in a large randomized controlled clinical trial. In INBUILD, 663 patients with progressive ILD not caused by IPF or scleroderma were randomized to nintedanib vs placebo for one year (Flaherty KR. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep;381:1718-27). A majority of the patients (62%) had a UIP pattern on CT scan. There was overall improvement in the annual rate of decline in FVC in the treatment group, especially in the pr-determined subgroup of patients with a UIP pattern. The most common ILDs in the study were chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and that associated with connective tissue disease.
Pirfenidone is also being studied in multiple trials for various types of non-IPF ILD. Studies are either completed and nearing publication, or are ongoing. Some examples include the TRAIL1 study examining pirfenidone vs placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02808871), and the phase 2 RELIEF study that explores pirfenidone vs placebo in patients with progressive ILD from a variety of etiologies.
As more clinical trials are published, clinicians are now facing a different dilemma. Whereas the options for treatment were limited to only various anti-inflammatory medications in past years for patients with non-IPF ILDs, the growing body of literature supporting antifibrotics present a new therapeutic avenue to explore. Which patients should be started on anti-inflammatory medications, and which should start antifibrotics? Those questions may never be answered satisfactorily in clinical trials. Mycophenolate has become so entrenched in many treatment plans, enrollment into such a study comparing the two therapeutic classes head-to-head would be challenging.
However, a consideration of the specific phenotype of the patient’s ILD is a suggested approach that comes from clinical experience. Patients with more inflammatory changes on CT scan, such as more ground glass opacifications or a non-UIP pattern, might benefit from initiation of anti-inflammatory therapies such as a combination of corticosteroids and mycophenolate. Conversely, initiating antifibrotic therapy upfront, with or without concomitant mycophenolate, is a consideration if the pattern of disease is consistent with UIP on CT scan.
Ultimately, referral to a dedicated interstitial lung disease center for expert evaluation and multidisciplinary discussion may be warranted to sift through these difficult situations, especially as the field of research grows more robust. In any event, the future for patients with these diseases, though still challenged, is brighter than before.
Dr. Kershaw is Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He is the current section editor for Pulmonary
Perpsectives®and Vice Chair of the Interstitial and Diffuse Lung Disease NetWork at CHEST.
Care of the patient with a fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) presents constant challenges not just in the diagnosis of ILD but in the choice of treatment. Since the FDA approval of both nintedanib and pirfenidone for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 2014, interest has grown for their employ in treating other non-IPF ILDs. This is especially true in cases with the pattern of radiographic or histopathological disease is similar to IPF – a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern – despite not meeting criteria for an IPF diagnosis due to the identification of a predisposing etiology. As research evolves, clinicians may have more options to fight the vast variety of fibrosing ILDs encountered in practice.
In 2014, the publication of separate clinical trials of nintedanib and pirfenidone in patients with IPF marked a new beginning in the treatment of this disease. Nintedanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with multiple targets, was shown to decrease progression of disease as measured by the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) (Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 May;370[22]:2071-82). Pirfenidone, whose antifibrotic mechanisms are not completely understood, similarly slowed disease progression via a decrease in the percent change of predicted FVC (Lederer DJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014 May;370[19]:2083-92). Clinicians were now armed with two therapeutic options following the subsequent FDA approval of both drugs for the treatment of IPF. This represented a giant leap forward in the management of the disease, as prior to 2014 the only available options were supportive care and lung transplant for appropriate candidates.
As IPF represents but 20% of ILDs in the United States, a significant proportion of diseases were left without an antifibrotic option after the arrival of nintedanib and pirfenidone. (Lederer DJ. N Engl J Med. 2018 May;378:1811-23). For the others, such as chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and the many connective tissue disease-associated ILDs, treatment revolved around a variety of anti-inflammatory pharmaceuticals. Common treatment choices include corticosteroids, mycophenolate, and azathioprine. The data in support of these treatments for non-IPF ILD is comparatively lean in contrast to the more robust pirfenidone and nintedanib IPF trials.
One notable exception includes the Scleroderma Lung Studies. In Scleroderma Lung Study II (SLS II), 142 patients with scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease were randomized to oral mycophenolate for 24 months vs oral cyclophosphamide for 12 months plus placebo for 12 months (Tashkin DP, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Sep;4(9):708-19). The 2006 Scleroderma Lung Study established oral cyclophosphamide in scleroderma lung disease as a reasonable standard of care after demonstrating a slowing of disease progression after 12 months of therapy (Tashkin DP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun;354[25]:2655-66). In SLS II, both cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate improved lung function at 24 months, but mycophenolate was better tolerated with less toxicity.
Other supportive data for immunosuppressive treatments for non-IPF ILD rely heavily on smaller studies, case reports, and retrospective reviews. Choices of who and when to treat are often unclear and typically come from physician preferences and patient values discussions. In the cases of connective tissue disease-associated ILD, patients may already require treatment for the underlying condition. And, while some therapies could be beneficial in a concurrent manner for a patient’s lung disease, many others are not (TNF-alpha antibody therapy, for example).
A major step forward for patients with scleroderma lung disease came with the publication of the SENSCIS trial (Oliver D, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun;380:2518-28). A total of 576 patients with scleroderma of recent onset (< 7 years) and at least 10% fibrosis on chest CT were randomized to receive either nintedanib or placebo. Patients were allowed to be supported by other therapies at stable doses prior to enrollment, and as such almost half of the patients were receiving mycophenolate. A significant improvement in annual FVC decline was reported in the treatment group, although the effect was tempered in the subgroup analysis when considering patients already on mycophenolate. Thus, the role of nintedanib in patients taking mycophenolate is less clear.
An ongoing study may clarify the role of mycophenolate and antifibrotic therapy in these patients. The phase 2 Scleroderma Lung Study III has a planned enrollment of 150 patients who are either treatment-naïve or only recently started on therapy (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03221257). Patients are randomized to mycophenolate plus pirfenidone vs mycophenolate plus placebo, and the treatment phase will last 18 months. The primary outcome is change in baseline FVC. This trial design will hopefully answer whether the combination of an antifibrotic with an anti-inflammatory medication is superior to the anti-inflammatory therapy alone, in patients with at least some evidence of inflammation (ground-glass opacifications) on high-resolution CT scan (HRCT).
In ILD other than that associated with scleroderma, nintedanib was again explored in a large randomized controlled clinical trial. In INBUILD, 663 patients with progressive ILD not caused by IPF or scleroderma were randomized to nintedanib vs placebo for one year (Flaherty KR. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep;381:1718-27). A majority of the patients (62%) had a UIP pattern on CT scan. There was overall improvement in the annual rate of decline in FVC in the treatment group, especially in the pr-determined subgroup of patients with a UIP pattern. The most common ILDs in the study were chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis and that associated with connective tissue disease.
Pirfenidone is also being studied in multiple trials for various types of non-IPF ILD. Studies are either completed and nearing publication, or are ongoing. Some examples include the TRAIL1 study examining pirfenidone vs placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02808871), and the phase 2 RELIEF study that explores pirfenidone vs placebo in patients with progressive ILD from a variety of etiologies.
As more clinical trials are published, clinicians are now facing a different dilemma. Whereas the options for treatment were limited to only various anti-inflammatory medications in past years for patients with non-IPF ILDs, the growing body of literature supporting antifibrotics present a new therapeutic avenue to explore. Which patients should be started on anti-inflammatory medications, and which should start antifibrotics? Those questions may never be answered satisfactorily in clinical trials. Mycophenolate has become so entrenched in many treatment plans, enrollment into such a study comparing the two therapeutic classes head-to-head would be challenging.
However, a consideration of the specific phenotype of the patient’s ILD is a suggested approach that comes from clinical experience. Patients with more inflammatory changes on CT scan, such as more ground glass opacifications or a non-UIP pattern, might benefit from initiation of anti-inflammatory therapies such as a combination of corticosteroids and mycophenolate. Conversely, initiating antifibrotic therapy upfront, with or without concomitant mycophenolate, is a consideration if the pattern of disease is consistent with UIP on CT scan.
Ultimately, referral to a dedicated interstitial lung disease center for expert evaluation and multidisciplinary discussion may be warranted to sift through these difficult situations, especially as the field of research grows more robust. In any event, the future for patients with these diseases, though still challenged, is brighter than before.
Dr. Kershaw is Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He is the current section editor for Pulmonary
Perpsectives®and Vice Chair of the Interstitial and Diffuse Lung Disease NetWork at CHEST.
Bronchoscopy and tracheostomy in the COVID-19 era
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.
The asymptomatic outpatient
Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.
For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
The symptomatic COVID-19 patient
In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.
The critically ill COVID-19 patient
While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.
Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?
Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.
The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).
Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).
Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
What’s ahead?
As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.
The asymptomatic outpatient
Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.
For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
The symptomatic COVID-19 patient
In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.
The critically ill COVID-19 patient
While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.
Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?
Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.
The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).
Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).
Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
What’s ahead?
As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the way we deliver healthcare for the foreseeable future. Not only have we had to rapidly learn how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat this new disease, we have also had to shift how we screen, triage, and care for other patients for both their safety and ours. As the virus is primarily spread via respiratory droplets, aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), such as bronchoscopy and tracheostomy, are high-risk for viral transmission. We have therefore had to reassess the risk/benefit ratio of performing these procedures – what is the risk to the patient by procedure postponement vs the risk to the health-care personnel (HCP) involved by moving ahead with the procedure? And, if proceeding, how should we protect ourselves? How do we screen patients to help us stratify risk? In order to answer these questions, we generally divide patients into three categories: the asymptomatic outpatient, the symptomatic patient, and the critically ill patient.
The asymptomatic outpatient
Early in the pandemic as cases began to spike in the US, many hospitals decided to postpone all elective procedures and surgeries. Guidelines quickly emerged stratifying bronchoscopic procedures into emergent, urgent, acute, subacute, and truly elective with recommendations on the subsequent timing of those procedures (Pritchett MA, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12[5]:1781-1798). As we have obtained further data and our infrastructure has been bolstered, many physicians have begun performing more routine procedures. Preprocedural screening, both with symptom questionnaires and nasopharyngeal swabs, has been enacted as a measure to prevent inadvertent exposure to infected patients. While there are limited data regarding the reliability of this measure, emerging data have shown good concordance between nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples in low-risk patients (Oberg, et al. Personal communication, Sept 2020). Emergency procedures, such as foreign body aspiration, critical airway obstruction, and massive hemoptysis, were generally performed without delay throughout the pandemic. More recently, emphasis has been placed on prioritizing procedures for acute clinical diagnoses, such as biopsies for concerning lung nodules or masses in potentially early-stage patients, in those where staging is needed and in those where disease progression is suspected. Subacute procedures, such as inspection bronchoscopy for cough, minor hemoptysis, or airway stent surveillance, have generally been reintroduced while elective procedures, such as bronchial thermoplasty and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction, are considered elective, and their frequency and timing is determined mostly by the number of new cases of COVID-19 in the local community.
For all procedures, general modifications have been made. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters should be placed on all ventilatory circuits. When equivalent, flexible bronchoscopy is preferred over rigid bronchoscopy due to the closed circuit. Enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) for all procedures is recommended – this typically includes a gown, gloves, hair bonnet, N-95 mask, and a face shield. Strict adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for postprocedure cleaning and sterilization is strongly recommended. In some cases, single-use bronchoscopes are being preferentially used, though no strong recommendations exist for this.
The symptomatic COVID-19 patient
In patients who have been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, we generally recommend postponing all procedures other than for life-threatening indications. For outpatients, we generally wait for two negative nasopharyngeal swabs prior to performing any nonemergent procedure. In inpatients, similar recommendations exist. Potential inpatient indications for bronchoscopy include diagnostic evaluation for alternate or coinfections, and therapeutic aspiration of clinically significant secretions. These should be carefully considered and performed only if deemed absolutely necessary. If bronchoscopy is needed in a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, at a minimum, gown, gloves, head cover, face shield, and an N-95 mask should be worn. A powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) can be used and may provide increased protection. Proper donning and doffing techniques should be reviewed prior to any procedure. Personnel involved in the case should be limited to the minimum required. The procedure should be performed by experienced operators and limited in length. Removal and reinsertion of the bronchoscope should be minimized.
The critically ill COVID-19 patient
While the majority of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 will have only mild symptoms, we know that a subset of patients will develop respiratory failure. Of those, a small but significant number will require prolonged mechanical ventilation during their clinical course. Thus, the consideration for tracheostomy comes into play.
Multiple issues arise when discussing tracheostomy placement in the COVID-19 world. Should it be done at all? If yes, what is the best technique and who should do it? When and where should it be done? Importantly – how do we care for patients once it is in place to facilitate recovery and, hopefully, decannulation?
Tracheostomy tubes are used in the ICU for patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation for many reasons – patient comfort, decreased need for sedation, and to facilitate transfer out of the ICU to less acute care areas. These reasons are just as important in patients afflicted with respiratory failure from COVID-19, if not more so. As the patient volumes surge, health-care systems can quickly become overwhelmed. The ability to safely move patients out of the ICU frees up those resources for others who are more acutely ill.
The optimal technique for tracheostomy placement largely depends on the technological and human capital of each institution. Emphasis should be placed on procedural experience, efficiency, safety, and minimizing risk to HCP. While mortality rates do not differ between the surgical and percutaneous techniques, the percutaneous approach has been shown to require less procedural time (Iftikhar IH, et al. Lung. 2019[Jun];197[3]:267-275), an important infection control advantage in COVID-19 patients. Additionally, percutaneous tracheostomies are typically performed at the bedside, which offers the immediate benefit of minimizing patient transfer. This decreases exposure to multiple HCP, as well as contamination of other health-care areas. If performing a bronchoscopic-guided percutaneous tracheostomy, apnea should be maintained from insertion of the guiding catheter to tracheostomy insertion in order to minimize aerosolization. A novel technique involving placing the bronchoscope beside the endotracheal tube instead of through it has also been described (Angel L, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020[Sep];110[3]:1006–1011).
Timing of tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients has varied widely. Initially, concern for the safety of HCP performing these procedures led to recommendations of waiting at least 21 days of intubation or until COVID-19 testing became negative. However, more recently, multiple recommendations have been made for tracheostomy placement after day 10 of intubation (McGrath, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020[Jul];8[7]:717-725).
Finally, once a tracheostomy tube has been placed, the care does not stop there. As patients are transitioned to rehabilitation centers or skilled nursing facilities and are assessed for weaning, downsizing, and decannulation, care should be taken to avoid virus aerosolization during key high-risk steps. Modifications such as performing spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support (a closed circuit) rather than tracheostomy mask, bypassing speaking valve trials in favor of direct tracheostomy capping, and avoiding routine tracheostomy downsizing are examples of simple steps that can be taken to facilitate patient progress while minimizing HCP risk (Divo, et al. Respir Care. 2020[Aug]5;respcare.08157).
What’s ahead?
As we move forward, we will continue to balance caring for patients effectively and efficiently while minimizing risk to ourselves and others. Ultimately until a vaccine exists, we will have to focus on prevention of infection and spread; therefore, the core principles of hand hygiene, mask wearing, and social distancing have never been more important. We encourage continued study, scrutiny, and collaboration in order to optimize procedural techniques as more information becomes available.
Dr. Oberg is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; Dr. Beattie is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; and Dr. Folch is with the Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
Telehealth in the COVID-19 era: The New York experience
Big data scientists and health-care experts have tried preparing physicians and patients for the arrival of telemedicine for years. Health tracking applications are on our smartphones. Compact ambulatory devices diagnose hypertension and atrial fibrillation. Advanced imaging modalities make the stethoscope more of a neck accessory than a practical tool. Despite these efficient technologic advancements, the idea of making the sacred in-person office visit remote and through a screen appealed to few. In fact, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, only 15% of medical practices offered telehealth services and 8% of Americans joined in remote visits annually (Mann DM et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Feb 1;26[2]:106-114).
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit New York City and admissions for hypoxemic respiratory failure skyrocketed, ED and in-person clinic visits for other acute and chronic conditions plummeted. Prior to clinics officially closing their doors, doctors in New York City asked their patients to reserve office visits for emergency issues only ,with most patients willingly staying home to avoid exposure to the virus. Suddenly, after years of disinterest in adopting telehealth, hospitals and clinics were catapulted into a full-on need for this technology. Overnight, our division’s secretaries and medical assistants became IT support staff. We all learned together what worked, what didn’t work, and how to adapt our workflow to meet everyone’s needs.
Previously, longstanding issues with accessibility and reimbursement presented barriers to widespread adoption of telemedicine. Once the pandemic hit, though, many regulatory changes were quickly made to accommodate telehealth.
Three such changes are worth highlighting (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. COVID-19 emergency declaration blanket waivers for health care providers. March 30, 2020).
First, patient privacy rules became more lenient. Prior to the pandemic, HIPAA mandated that both doctor and patient use embedded video interfaces with high levels of security. Now, health-care providers can use commonplace video chat applications such as FaceTime, Google Hangouts, Zoom, or Skype to provide telehealth without risk of penalty for HIPAA noncompliance. When connectivity concerns arose with our EMR’s embedded telehealth application, a quick transition to one of these platforms mitigated patient and provider frustration.
Second, prior to the pandemic, some private insurance providers reimbursed for televisits, but there were stipulations on how the visit could be conducted. Now, many of the commercial insurers plus Medicare and Medicaid in New York State reimburse the same amount for televisits as in-person visits (fee-for-service rate). Reimbursement rates of audio-only encounters were increased. If these changes are continued postpandemic, it will have an expansive impact on the future of an outpatient practice.
Third, restrictive government regulations relaxed with regard to telehealth deployment. Gone are the demands on providers and patients to be physically face-to-face. Many colleagues worked from home, safely social distancing.
Even though remote medical visits were a crucial part of flattening the curve during the peak of the pandemic in New York City, the telehealth experience is not without flaws.
An informal survey of providers in our own division garnered diverse and spirited viewpoints about seeing patients remotely. Instead of using a stethoscope to pick up a subtle finding, telehealth visits require the use of our eyes to scan a patient’s home environment for insights explaining their chronic cough (Where is the mold? Where is the water damage? Where is the bird?). We use our ears to hear the intonation of our patient’s voice to know when he or she is concerned, anxious, or are at their baselines. We would implore patients to put on their pulse oximeter and perform activities of daily living and/or exertion. On multiple occasions, patients would perform their own, unsolicited walks about their home to show us what they could and couldn’t do, where they place their concentrators, and where they are likely to trip over oxygen tubing. We learned to depend on them to reach the conclusion that they were at their normal state of health.
For straight-forward encounters with existing patients, most of our colleagues appreciated the simplicity and efficiency of telemedicine. But when it came to new patients, some colleagues struggled with whether they should see them for the first time over video. Universally, providers felt feelings of inadequacy without an in-person examination and review of diagnostic information.
Along those lines, many of our colleagues worried about their ability to perform the most fundamental role of a physician over the phone/internet for all patients: building trust with a patient. Eye contact, the physical exam, and verbal and nonv
Providers also noted that telehealth implementation is not the same for all individuals. Just as COVID-19 disproportionately affects the most vulnerable populations (NYC Health. COVID-19: data. Accessed July 1, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page), practicing telehealth has uncovered more ways in which racial/ethnic minorities, low income communities, and older patients are at a disadvantage (Garg S, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69[15]:458). The relatively quick transition to telemedicine revealed that many of our patients don’t have emails or home computers to connect with online platforms. Similarly, some do not have smart phones with internet capabilities. Many do not speak English and cannot partake in video visits since translators are not yet embedded into the EMR’s video system. Elderly patients were frequently very anxious with telemedicine because of unfamiliarity with the technology, and many preferred a phone conversation. Thus, while more fortunate patients get to use a video interface and its association with higher patient understanding and satisfaction, our most vulnerable populations are often denied the same access to such care (Voils CI et al. J Genet Couns. 2018;27[2]:339).
Telemedicine will continue to have a significant impact on the future of health care long after the COVID-19 pandemic abates. There will be growing pains, refinement of technology, improvements in policy, and an ongoing general evolution of the system. Patients and providers will grow together as its utilization continues. We suspect patient surveys about their attitudes and preferences for telemedicine will be as varied as the providers surveyed here. A recent survey of 1000 patients about their telehealth experiences during the pandemic reported that over 75% were very or completely satisfied with their virtual care experiences and over 50% indicated they would be willing to switch providers to have virtual visits on a regular basis (Patient Perspectives on Virtual Care Report, Accessed July 7, 2020, https://www.kyruus.com/2020-virtual-care-report).
One hopes that with time and on-going feedback, the fundamental purpose of the physician-patient relationship can be maintained and both sides can still appreciate the conveniences and power of telehealth technology.
Dr. Fedyna and Dr. McGroder are affiliated with the Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
Big data scientists and health-care experts have tried preparing physicians and patients for the arrival of telemedicine for years. Health tracking applications are on our smartphones. Compact ambulatory devices diagnose hypertension and atrial fibrillation. Advanced imaging modalities make the stethoscope more of a neck accessory than a practical tool. Despite these efficient technologic advancements, the idea of making the sacred in-person office visit remote and through a screen appealed to few. In fact, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, only 15% of medical practices offered telehealth services and 8% of Americans joined in remote visits annually (Mann DM et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Feb 1;26[2]:106-114).
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit New York City and admissions for hypoxemic respiratory failure skyrocketed, ED and in-person clinic visits for other acute and chronic conditions plummeted. Prior to clinics officially closing their doors, doctors in New York City asked their patients to reserve office visits for emergency issues only ,with most patients willingly staying home to avoid exposure to the virus. Suddenly, after years of disinterest in adopting telehealth, hospitals and clinics were catapulted into a full-on need for this technology. Overnight, our division’s secretaries and medical assistants became IT support staff. We all learned together what worked, what didn’t work, and how to adapt our workflow to meet everyone’s needs.
Previously, longstanding issues with accessibility and reimbursement presented barriers to widespread adoption of telemedicine. Once the pandemic hit, though, many regulatory changes were quickly made to accommodate telehealth.
Three such changes are worth highlighting (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. COVID-19 emergency declaration blanket waivers for health care providers. March 30, 2020).
First, patient privacy rules became more lenient. Prior to the pandemic, HIPAA mandated that both doctor and patient use embedded video interfaces with high levels of security. Now, health-care providers can use commonplace video chat applications such as FaceTime, Google Hangouts, Zoom, or Skype to provide telehealth without risk of penalty for HIPAA noncompliance. When connectivity concerns arose with our EMR’s embedded telehealth application, a quick transition to one of these platforms mitigated patient and provider frustration.
Second, prior to the pandemic, some private insurance providers reimbursed for televisits, but there were stipulations on how the visit could be conducted. Now, many of the commercial insurers plus Medicare and Medicaid in New York State reimburse the same amount for televisits as in-person visits (fee-for-service rate). Reimbursement rates of audio-only encounters were increased. If these changes are continued postpandemic, it will have an expansive impact on the future of an outpatient practice.
Third, restrictive government regulations relaxed with regard to telehealth deployment. Gone are the demands on providers and patients to be physically face-to-face. Many colleagues worked from home, safely social distancing.
Even though remote medical visits were a crucial part of flattening the curve during the peak of the pandemic in New York City, the telehealth experience is not without flaws.
An informal survey of providers in our own division garnered diverse and spirited viewpoints about seeing patients remotely. Instead of using a stethoscope to pick up a subtle finding, telehealth visits require the use of our eyes to scan a patient’s home environment for insights explaining their chronic cough (Where is the mold? Where is the water damage? Where is the bird?). We use our ears to hear the intonation of our patient’s voice to know when he or she is concerned, anxious, or are at their baselines. We would implore patients to put on their pulse oximeter and perform activities of daily living and/or exertion. On multiple occasions, patients would perform their own, unsolicited walks about their home to show us what they could and couldn’t do, where they place their concentrators, and where they are likely to trip over oxygen tubing. We learned to depend on them to reach the conclusion that they were at their normal state of health.
For straight-forward encounters with existing patients, most of our colleagues appreciated the simplicity and efficiency of telemedicine. But when it came to new patients, some colleagues struggled with whether they should see them for the first time over video. Universally, providers felt feelings of inadequacy without an in-person examination and review of diagnostic information.
Along those lines, many of our colleagues worried about their ability to perform the most fundamental role of a physician over the phone/internet for all patients: building trust with a patient. Eye contact, the physical exam, and verbal and nonv
Providers also noted that telehealth implementation is not the same for all individuals. Just as COVID-19 disproportionately affects the most vulnerable populations (NYC Health. COVID-19: data. Accessed July 1, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page), practicing telehealth has uncovered more ways in which racial/ethnic minorities, low income communities, and older patients are at a disadvantage (Garg S, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69[15]:458). The relatively quick transition to telemedicine revealed that many of our patients don’t have emails or home computers to connect with online platforms. Similarly, some do not have smart phones with internet capabilities. Many do not speak English and cannot partake in video visits since translators are not yet embedded into the EMR’s video system. Elderly patients were frequently very anxious with telemedicine because of unfamiliarity with the technology, and many preferred a phone conversation. Thus, while more fortunate patients get to use a video interface and its association with higher patient understanding and satisfaction, our most vulnerable populations are often denied the same access to such care (Voils CI et al. J Genet Couns. 2018;27[2]:339).
Telemedicine will continue to have a significant impact on the future of health care long after the COVID-19 pandemic abates. There will be growing pains, refinement of technology, improvements in policy, and an ongoing general evolution of the system. Patients and providers will grow together as its utilization continues. We suspect patient surveys about their attitudes and preferences for telemedicine will be as varied as the providers surveyed here. A recent survey of 1000 patients about their telehealth experiences during the pandemic reported that over 75% were very or completely satisfied with their virtual care experiences and over 50% indicated they would be willing to switch providers to have virtual visits on a regular basis (Patient Perspectives on Virtual Care Report, Accessed July 7, 2020, https://www.kyruus.com/2020-virtual-care-report).
One hopes that with time and on-going feedback, the fundamental purpose of the physician-patient relationship can be maintained and both sides can still appreciate the conveniences and power of telehealth technology.
Dr. Fedyna and Dr. McGroder are affiliated with the Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
Big data scientists and health-care experts have tried preparing physicians and patients for the arrival of telemedicine for years. Health tracking applications are on our smartphones. Compact ambulatory devices diagnose hypertension and atrial fibrillation. Advanced imaging modalities make the stethoscope more of a neck accessory than a practical tool. Despite these efficient technologic advancements, the idea of making the sacred in-person office visit remote and through a screen appealed to few. In fact, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, only 15% of medical practices offered telehealth services and 8% of Americans joined in remote visits annually (Mann DM et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Feb 1;26[2]:106-114).
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit New York City and admissions for hypoxemic respiratory failure skyrocketed, ED and in-person clinic visits for other acute and chronic conditions plummeted. Prior to clinics officially closing their doors, doctors in New York City asked their patients to reserve office visits for emergency issues only ,with most patients willingly staying home to avoid exposure to the virus. Suddenly, after years of disinterest in adopting telehealth, hospitals and clinics were catapulted into a full-on need for this technology. Overnight, our division’s secretaries and medical assistants became IT support staff. We all learned together what worked, what didn’t work, and how to adapt our workflow to meet everyone’s needs.
Previously, longstanding issues with accessibility and reimbursement presented barriers to widespread adoption of telemedicine. Once the pandemic hit, though, many regulatory changes were quickly made to accommodate telehealth.
Three such changes are worth highlighting (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. COVID-19 emergency declaration blanket waivers for health care providers. March 30, 2020).
First, patient privacy rules became more lenient. Prior to the pandemic, HIPAA mandated that both doctor and patient use embedded video interfaces with high levels of security. Now, health-care providers can use commonplace video chat applications such as FaceTime, Google Hangouts, Zoom, or Skype to provide telehealth without risk of penalty for HIPAA noncompliance. When connectivity concerns arose with our EMR’s embedded telehealth application, a quick transition to one of these platforms mitigated patient and provider frustration.
Second, prior to the pandemic, some private insurance providers reimbursed for televisits, but there were stipulations on how the visit could be conducted. Now, many of the commercial insurers plus Medicare and Medicaid in New York State reimburse the same amount for televisits as in-person visits (fee-for-service rate). Reimbursement rates of audio-only encounters were increased. If these changes are continued postpandemic, it will have an expansive impact on the future of an outpatient practice.
Third, restrictive government regulations relaxed with regard to telehealth deployment. Gone are the demands on providers and patients to be physically face-to-face. Many colleagues worked from home, safely social distancing.
Even though remote medical visits were a crucial part of flattening the curve during the peak of the pandemic in New York City, the telehealth experience is not without flaws.
An informal survey of providers in our own division garnered diverse and spirited viewpoints about seeing patients remotely. Instead of using a stethoscope to pick up a subtle finding, telehealth visits require the use of our eyes to scan a patient’s home environment for insights explaining their chronic cough (Where is the mold? Where is the water damage? Where is the bird?). We use our ears to hear the intonation of our patient’s voice to know when he or she is concerned, anxious, or are at their baselines. We would implore patients to put on their pulse oximeter and perform activities of daily living and/or exertion. On multiple occasions, patients would perform their own, unsolicited walks about their home to show us what they could and couldn’t do, where they place their concentrators, and where they are likely to trip over oxygen tubing. We learned to depend on them to reach the conclusion that they were at their normal state of health.
For straight-forward encounters with existing patients, most of our colleagues appreciated the simplicity and efficiency of telemedicine. But when it came to new patients, some colleagues struggled with whether they should see them for the first time over video. Universally, providers felt feelings of inadequacy without an in-person examination and review of diagnostic information.
Along those lines, many of our colleagues worried about their ability to perform the most fundamental role of a physician over the phone/internet for all patients: building trust with a patient. Eye contact, the physical exam, and verbal and nonv
Providers also noted that telehealth implementation is not the same for all individuals. Just as COVID-19 disproportionately affects the most vulnerable populations (NYC Health. COVID-19: data. Accessed July 1, 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page), practicing telehealth has uncovered more ways in which racial/ethnic minorities, low income communities, and older patients are at a disadvantage (Garg S, et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69[15]:458). The relatively quick transition to telemedicine revealed that many of our patients don’t have emails or home computers to connect with online platforms. Similarly, some do not have smart phones with internet capabilities. Many do not speak English and cannot partake in video visits since translators are not yet embedded into the EMR’s video system. Elderly patients were frequently very anxious with telemedicine because of unfamiliarity with the technology, and many preferred a phone conversation. Thus, while more fortunate patients get to use a video interface and its association with higher patient understanding and satisfaction, our most vulnerable populations are often denied the same access to such care (Voils CI et al. J Genet Couns. 2018;27[2]:339).
Telemedicine will continue to have a significant impact on the future of health care long after the COVID-19 pandemic abates. There will be growing pains, refinement of technology, improvements in policy, and an ongoing general evolution of the system. Patients and providers will grow together as its utilization continues. We suspect patient surveys about their attitudes and preferences for telemedicine will be as varied as the providers surveyed here. A recent survey of 1000 patients about their telehealth experiences during the pandemic reported that over 75% were very or completely satisfied with their virtual care experiences and over 50% indicated they would be willing to switch providers to have virtual visits on a regular basis (Patient Perspectives on Virtual Care Report, Accessed July 7, 2020, https://www.kyruus.com/2020-virtual-care-report).
One hopes that with time and on-going feedback, the fundamental purpose of the physician-patient relationship can be maintained and both sides can still appreciate the conveniences and power of telehealth technology.
Dr. Fedyna and Dr. McGroder are affiliated with the Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
Evolving treatment of cystic fibrosis: Path toward a normal lifespan
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disorder affecting thousands of people worldwide. When this genetic disease was first discovered in the first half of the 20th century, the median survival was approximately 5 years of age. Since then, median survival for patients with CF has steadily improved. Today, it is 47.4 years based on Cystic Fibrosis Foundation registry data from 2018. Patients with CF are living longer and staying healthier; the discussion to follow is how patients, researchers, and the CF Foundation reached this point. 
In 1938, pediatrician and pathologist Dorothy Anderson observed on the autopsies of children thought to have celiac disease pancreatic lesions she termed “cystic fibrosis of the pancreas.” In addition to the abnormal pancreas, she noted abnormal lungs filled with mucus that obstructed the airways.
Paul Di Sant’Agnese recognized during a heatwave in late 1948 that children with CF were routinely being diagnosed with heatstroke and dehydration. This helped lead to the discovery that these children had elevated salt content in their sweat, paving the way for the development of the sweat chloride test in 1959 by Gibson and Cooke. Not only did Dr. Di Sant’Agnese recognize excess salt in the sweat of patients with CF, but with the help of several concerned parents of children with CF, he established the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in 1955. The Foundation helped organize the care center model over the next decades, increasing from 30 care centers in 1962 to over 100 in 1978. The care center model also developed a patient registry to track patient care longitudinally.
In June 1989, Francis Collins and Lap-Chee Tsui discovered the location of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein using a novel technique called chromosome jumping (Rommens JM, et al. Science. 1989;245[4922]1059). The discovery was a breakthrough in basic science research, but it would take 3 more decades before this discovery could be translated into a medication that could be used by most patients for everyday care.
In the early 1990s, when median survival for patients with CF was 29 years of age, the CF Foundation and Genentech, Inc., coordinated a 24-week multicenter double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) for a new inhaled medication that digested the extracellular DNA from the neutrophils that accumulated in the airways of patients with CF. Inhaled recombinant human DNase in these patients reduced the risk of pulmonary exacerbations and also had a small improvement in pulmonary function in the group compared with the placebo group (Fuchs H, et al. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:637). Five years later, another double-blind RCT demonstrated that inhaled tobramycin in patients with CF whose disease was colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved pulmonary function and reduced the risk of hospitalizations (Ramsey B, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:23). In 2006, the use of hypertonic saline solution in patients with CF decreased the overall pulmonary exacerbation rate (Elkins MR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:229). The combination of these inhaled medications, along with inhaled aztreonam, formed the backbone of inhalation therapy for CF care today.
In 1998, even with the ongoing development and approval of new CF medications by the pharmaceutical industry, Robert Beall, CEO of the CF Foundation, realized that he needed to challenge the current drug development paradigm. Instead of trying to convince companies to develop CF medications, he started a concept called venture philanthropy. This concept entailed the CF Foundation financially investing in pharmaceutical companies’ development of new medications. The Foundation first invested in a small company named Aurora Biosciences (known today as Vertex Pharmaceuticals) in 2000. Aurora Biosciences specialized in high throughput screening. This process uses a unique technology allowing one to test the therapeutic reaction of airway cells to thousands of chemical compounds in a single day, instead of using the traditional process of tediously pipetting compounds one by one. Today, the CF Foundation has invested millions of dollars into bioscience research to advance CF care.
In 2011, the results of a study were published in which a small molecule altered defective CFTR protein in patients with CF with the CFTR mutation G551D, thus improving chloride transport at the airway surface. In the original study, after 24 weeks of therapy receiving the medication known as ivacaftor, predicted FEV1 in patients with CF improved 10.6%, and the patients were 55% less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation compared with those receiving a placebo. This breakthrough provided patients with CF the first medication that could correct the CFTR at the source of the problem (Ramsey BW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1663). Ivacaftor was approved by the US FDA in 2012.
Ivacaftor provided proof of concept that using small molecules could improve CFTR function. Ivacaftor was only beneficial to a small percentage of patients and was not effective in patients with CF who had either 1 or 2 F508del CFTR mutations. In 2015, patients with CF with F508del homozygous treated with a combination therapy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor had predicted FEV1% improved 2.6% to 4.0%. More importantly, there was a significant reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations per year compared with placebo. Unexpectedly, some of the patients experienced bronchoconstriction while receiving lumacaftor/ivacaftor (Wainwright CE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:220). The problem was recognized, and a new small molecule to improve the processing and trafficking of CFTR called tezacaftor was developed. The combination of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in patients with CF who were F508del homozygous demonstrated a similar reduction in pulmonary exacerbations, an absolute improvement of predicted FEV1 of 4%, and no increased respiratory symptoms compared with the placebo arm (Taylor-Cousar JL, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;377[21]2013).
CFTR modulators were a major breakthrough for patients with CF, but the efficacy of these therapies was dependent on the patients’ genotype and ranged from mildly to moderately effective. Unfortunately, these therapies were ineffective for the patients who were delta 508 heterozygotes. Starting in the summer of 2018, VX 445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI) was compared with placebo in patients with CF who were 1 copy of F508del and a second CFTR mutation that has minimal function. The study found an absolute improvement in predicted FEV1 of 14.3% and a 63% reduction in exacerbations at 24 weeks compared with placebo (Middleton PG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1809). In late 2019, based on these data, ETI was approved by the FDA for all patients with CF who were F508del heterozygous. This innovation provided effective therapy to 90% of the CF population.
With the discovery of many highly effective therapies beneficial in most patients, the CF Foundation started a program called Path to a Cure to find therapies for the 10% of patients with CF who were not candidates for ETI or other CFTR modulators. This program looks to develop novel methods to restore CFTR protein function and repair or replace the CFTR protein via gene editing or gene transfer. This process creates many challenges that are quite complex, but patients, researchers, physicians, and CF Foundation will not stop working until CF stands for CURE FOUND.
Today, patients with CF are living longer, and many are eligible or have already started ETI therapy. This medication and the many others being developed will hopefully lead to patients with CF living a normal lifespan in the near future.
Dr. Finklea is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Finklea receives grant support from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disorder affecting thousands of people worldwide. When this genetic disease was first discovered in the first half of the 20th century, the median survival was approximately 5 years of age. Since then, median survival for patients with CF has steadily improved. Today, it is 47.4 years based on Cystic Fibrosis Foundation registry data from 2018. Patients with CF are living longer and staying healthier; the discussion to follow is how patients, researchers, and the CF Foundation reached this point.
In 1938, pediatrician and pathologist Dorothy Anderson observed on the autopsies of children thought to have celiac disease pancreatic lesions she termed “cystic fibrosis of the pancreas.” In addition to the abnormal pancreas, she noted abnormal lungs filled with mucus that obstructed the airways.
Paul Di Sant’Agnese recognized during a heatwave in late 1948 that children with CF were routinely being diagnosed with heatstroke and dehydration. This helped lead to the discovery that these children had elevated salt content in their sweat, paving the way for the development of the sweat chloride test in 1959 by Gibson and Cooke. Not only did Dr. Di Sant’Agnese recognize excess salt in the sweat of patients with CF, but with the help of several concerned parents of children with CF, he established the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in 1955. The Foundation helped organize the care center model over the next decades, increasing from 30 care centers in 1962 to over 100 in 1978. The care center model also developed a patient registry to track patient care longitudinally.
In June 1989, Francis Collins and Lap-Chee Tsui discovered the location of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein using a novel technique called chromosome jumping (Rommens JM, et al. Science. 1989;245[4922]1059). The discovery was a breakthrough in basic science research, but it would take 3 more decades before this discovery could be translated into a medication that could be used by most patients for everyday care.
In the early 1990s, when median survival for patients with CF was 29 years of age, the CF Foundation and Genentech, Inc., coordinated a 24-week multicenter double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) for a new inhaled medication that digested the extracellular DNA from the neutrophils that accumulated in the airways of patients with CF. Inhaled recombinant human DNase in these patients reduced the risk of pulmonary exacerbations and also had a small improvement in pulmonary function in the group compared with the placebo group (Fuchs H, et al. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:637). Five years later, another double-blind RCT demonstrated that inhaled tobramycin in patients with CF whose disease was colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved pulmonary function and reduced the risk of hospitalizations (Ramsey B, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:23). In 2006, the use of hypertonic saline solution in patients with CF decreased the overall pulmonary exacerbation rate (Elkins MR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:229). The combination of these inhaled medications, along with inhaled aztreonam, formed the backbone of inhalation therapy for CF care today.
In 1998, even with the ongoing development and approval of new CF medications by the pharmaceutical industry, Robert Beall, CEO of the CF Foundation, realized that he needed to challenge the current drug development paradigm. Instead of trying to convince companies to develop CF medications, he started a concept called venture philanthropy. This concept entailed the CF Foundation financially investing in pharmaceutical companies’ development of new medications. The Foundation first invested in a small company named Aurora Biosciences (known today as Vertex Pharmaceuticals) in 2000. Aurora Biosciences specialized in high throughput screening. This process uses a unique technology allowing one to test the therapeutic reaction of airway cells to thousands of chemical compounds in a single day, instead of using the traditional process of tediously pipetting compounds one by one. Today, the CF Foundation has invested millions of dollars into bioscience research to advance CF care.
In 2011, the results of a study were published in which a small molecule altered defective CFTR protein in patients with CF with the CFTR mutation G551D, thus improving chloride transport at the airway surface. In the original study, after 24 weeks of therapy receiving the medication known as ivacaftor, predicted FEV1 in patients with CF improved 10.6%, and the patients were 55% less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation compared with those receiving a placebo. This breakthrough provided patients with CF the first medication that could correct the CFTR at the source of the problem (Ramsey BW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1663). Ivacaftor was approved by the US FDA in 2012.
Ivacaftor provided proof of concept that using small molecules could improve CFTR function. Ivacaftor was only beneficial to a small percentage of patients and was not effective in patients with CF who had either 1 or 2 F508del CFTR mutations. In 2015, patients with CF with F508del homozygous treated with a combination therapy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor had predicted FEV1% improved 2.6% to 4.0%. More importantly, there was a significant reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations per year compared with placebo. Unexpectedly, some of the patients experienced bronchoconstriction while receiving lumacaftor/ivacaftor (Wainwright CE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:220). The problem was recognized, and a new small molecule to improve the processing and trafficking of CFTR called tezacaftor was developed. The combination of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in patients with CF who were F508del homozygous demonstrated a similar reduction in pulmonary exacerbations, an absolute improvement of predicted FEV1 of 4%, and no increased respiratory symptoms compared with the placebo arm (Taylor-Cousar JL, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;377[21]2013).
CFTR modulators were a major breakthrough for patients with CF, but the efficacy of these therapies was dependent on the patients’ genotype and ranged from mildly to moderately effective. Unfortunately, these therapies were ineffective for the patients who were delta 508 heterozygotes. Starting in the summer of 2018, VX 445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI) was compared with placebo in patients with CF who were 1 copy of F508del and a second CFTR mutation that has minimal function. The study found an absolute improvement in predicted FEV1 of 14.3% and a 63% reduction in exacerbations at 24 weeks compared with placebo (Middleton PG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1809). In late 2019, based on these data, ETI was approved by the FDA for all patients with CF who were F508del heterozygous. This innovation provided effective therapy to 90% of the CF population.
With the discovery of many highly effective therapies beneficial in most patients, the CF Foundation started a program called Path to a Cure to find therapies for the 10% of patients with CF who were not candidates for ETI or other CFTR modulators. This program looks to develop novel methods to restore CFTR protein function and repair or replace the CFTR protein via gene editing or gene transfer. This process creates many challenges that are quite complex, but patients, researchers, physicians, and CF Foundation will not stop working until CF stands for CURE FOUND.
Today, patients with CF are living longer, and many are eligible or have already started ETI therapy. This medication and the many others being developed will hopefully lead to patients with CF living a normal lifespan in the near future.
Dr. Finklea is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Finklea receives grant support from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disorder affecting thousands of people worldwide. When this genetic disease was first discovered in the first half of the 20th century, the median survival was approximately 5 years of age. Since then, median survival for patients with CF has steadily improved. Today, it is 47.4 years based on Cystic Fibrosis Foundation registry data from 2018. Patients with CF are living longer and staying healthier; the discussion to follow is how patients, researchers, and the CF Foundation reached this point.
In 1938, pediatrician and pathologist Dorothy Anderson observed on the autopsies of children thought to have celiac disease pancreatic lesions she termed “cystic fibrosis of the pancreas.” In addition to the abnormal pancreas, she noted abnormal lungs filled with mucus that obstructed the airways.
Paul Di Sant’Agnese recognized during a heatwave in late 1948 that children with CF were routinely being diagnosed with heatstroke and dehydration. This helped lead to the discovery that these children had elevated salt content in their sweat, paving the way for the development of the sweat chloride test in 1959 by Gibson and Cooke. Not only did Dr. Di Sant’Agnese recognize excess salt in the sweat of patients with CF, but with the help of several concerned parents of children with CF, he established the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in 1955. The Foundation helped organize the care center model over the next decades, increasing from 30 care centers in 1962 to over 100 in 1978. The care center model also developed a patient registry to track patient care longitudinally.
In June 1989, Francis Collins and Lap-Chee Tsui discovered the location of the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein using a novel technique called chromosome jumping (Rommens JM, et al. Science. 1989;245[4922]1059). The discovery was a breakthrough in basic science research, but it would take 3 more decades before this discovery could be translated into a medication that could be used by most patients for everyday care.
In the early 1990s, when median survival for patients with CF was 29 years of age, the CF Foundation and Genentech, Inc., coordinated a 24-week multicenter double-blind randomized control trial (RCT) for a new inhaled medication that digested the extracellular DNA from the neutrophils that accumulated in the airways of patients with CF. Inhaled recombinant human DNase in these patients reduced the risk of pulmonary exacerbations and also had a small improvement in pulmonary function in the group compared with the placebo group (Fuchs H, et al. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:637). Five years later, another double-blind RCT demonstrated that inhaled tobramycin in patients with CF whose disease was colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved pulmonary function and reduced the risk of hospitalizations (Ramsey B, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:23). In 2006, the use of hypertonic saline solution in patients with CF decreased the overall pulmonary exacerbation rate (Elkins MR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:229). The combination of these inhaled medications, along with inhaled aztreonam, formed the backbone of inhalation therapy for CF care today.
In 1998, even with the ongoing development and approval of new CF medications by the pharmaceutical industry, Robert Beall, CEO of the CF Foundation, realized that he needed to challenge the current drug development paradigm. Instead of trying to convince companies to develop CF medications, he started a concept called venture philanthropy. This concept entailed the CF Foundation financially investing in pharmaceutical companies’ development of new medications. The Foundation first invested in a small company named Aurora Biosciences (known today as Vertex Pharmaceuticals) in 2000. Aurora Biosciences specialized in high throughput screening. This process uses a unique technology allowing one to test the therapeutic reaction of airway cells to thousands of chemical compounds in a single day, instead of using the traditional process of tediously pipetting compounds one by one. Today, the CF Foundation has invested millions of dollars into bioscience research to advance CF care.
In 2011, the results of a study were published in which a small molecule altered defective CFTR protein in patients with CF with the CFTR mutation G551D, thus improving chloride transport at the airway surface. In the original study, after 24 weeks of therapy receiving the medication known as ivacaftor, predicted FEV1 in patients with CF improved 10.6%, and the patients were 55% less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation compared with those receiving a placebo. This breakthrough provided patients with CF the first medication that could correct the CFTR at the source of the problem (Ramsey BW, et al. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1663). Ivacaftor was approved by the US FDA in 2012.
Ivacaftor provided proof of concept that using small molecules could improve CFTR function. Ivacaftor was only beneficial to a small percentage of patients and was not effective in patients with CF who had either 1 or 2 F508del CFTR mutations. In 2015, patients with CF with F508del homozygous treated with a combination therapy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor had predicted FEV1% improved 2.6% to 4.0%. More importantly, there was a significant reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations per year compared with placebo. Unexpectedly, some of the patients experienced bronchoconstriction while receiving lumacaftor/ivacaftor (Wainwright CE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:220). The problem was recognized, and a new small molecule to improve the processing and trafficking of CFTR called tezacaftor was developed. The combination of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in patients with CF who were F508del homozygous demonstrated a similar reduction in pulmonary exacerbations, an absolute improvement of predicted FEV1 of 4%, and no increased respiratory symptoms compared with the placebo arm (Taylor-Cousar JL, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;377[21]2013).
CFTR modulators were a major breakthrough for patients with CF, but the efficacy of these therapies was dependent on the patients’ genotype and ranged from mildly to moderately effective. Unfortunately, these therapies were ineffective for the patients who were delta 508 heterozygotes. Starting in the summer of 2018, VX 445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI) was compared with placebo in patients with CF who were 1 copy of F508del and a second CFTR mutation that has minimal function. The study found an absolute improvement in predicted FEV1 of 14.3% and a 63% reduction in exacerbations at 24 weeks compared with placebo (Middleton PG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1809). In late 2019, based on these data, ETI was approved by the FDA for all patients with CF who were F508del heterozygous. This innovation provided effective therapy to 90% of the CF population.
With the discovery of many highly effective therapies beneficial in most patients, the CF Foundation started a program called Path to a Cure to find therapies for the 10% of patients with CF who were not candidates for ETI or other CFTR modulators. This program looks to develop novel methods to restore CFTR protein function and repair or replace the CFTR protein via gene editing or gene transfer. This process creates many challenges that are quite complex, but patients, researchers, physicians, and CF Foundation will not stop working until CF stands for CURE FOUND.
Today, patients with CF are living longer, and many are eligible or have already started ETI therapy. This medication and the many others being developed will hopefully lead to patients with CF living a normal lifespan in the near future.
Dr. Finklea is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Finklea receives grant support from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Expansion of the donor pool in lung transplantation
Lung transplants are increasing, with 2,562 performed in the United States in 2018 – a 31% increase over the preceding 5 years. With this increased demand for donor lungs, waitlist mortality in the United States is 9.4 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for obstructive lung diseases and as high as 29.7 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for restrictive lung diseases (Valapour M, et al. Lung. Am J Transplant. 2020;20[suppl s1]:427). Conversely, lungs are utilized from eligible multiorgan donors only 15% to 20% of the time, usually due to concerns over donor history or organ quality (Young KA, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:465). In light of this imbalance of supply and demand, lung transplant specialists are making significant efforts to expand the donor pool of available organs. Three of these strategies include: (1) applications of ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) technology; (2) use of lungs from hepatitis C-positive donors for hep-C negative recipients; and (3) increasing utilization of donation after cardiac death.
Normothermic ex-vivo lung perfusion is a technology which allows donor lungs to be perfused and ventilated after removal from the donor but before transplant into the recipient. This is in contrast to the traditional method of cold static preservation. The proposed advantage of using this technology is to allow time for a more thorough assessment of graft quality and to improve function of grafts not meeting established criteria for transplant, all-the-while decreasing organ ischemia despite an increased cross-clamp time. There are currently four commercial systems available capable of EVLP. Broadly speaking, three EVLP management protocols exist (Toronto, Lund, and OCS), which differ in perfusate composition, target flow, pulmonary arterial pressure, left atrial pressure, and ventilatory settings. Notably, the Toronto protocol uses a closed left atrium, whereas the Lund and OCS protocol use an open left atrium. There are excellent published reviews of the different systems (Possoz J, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11[4]:1635). EVLP has now been studied for two different goals: (1) to allow an extended evaluation of lungs of questionable quality before transplant; or (2) for routine use in all lung transplantations in place of cold static preservation.
In most studies concerning the use of EVLP for reconditioning of donor lungs, “high risk” or “extended criteria” refers to one or more of the following: P/F ratios < 300 on arterial blood gas, macroscopic abnormalities (eg, pulmonary edema, poor lung compliance), donation after circulatory death, or high-risk history (eg, aspiration). The largest cohort with the longest follow-up addressing the role of EVLP for donation of lungs with extended criteria was published from the Toronto Lung Transplant Group. Their results have demonstrated equivalent graft survival and rates of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) up to 9 years posttransplant compared with standard criteria donor lungs, despite utilizing lower quality lungs and having a longer median preservation (Divithotawela C, et al. JAMA Surg. 2019;154[12]:1143). The group’s subsequent lung transplant rates have increased over the past decade.
A separate study addressed the same question but differed in that it was a single-arm, multicenter, international trial that tracked the outcomes of 93 extended criteria lungs placed on EVLP (including a large proportion acquired via donation after circulatory death) (Loor G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[11]:975). Among these, 87% of eligible lungs were transplanted, and outcomes were excellent, albeit shorter in follow-up compared with the Toronto cohort (eg, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 (PGD3) within 72 hours was 44% and 1-year survival was 91%). Based on these trials and many other retrospective reports, it has been concluded by many experts in the field that EVLP-treated extended criteria donor lungs perform equally well to standard criteria donor lungs.
Two RCTs have been conducted to evaluate whether EVLP is noninferior to static cold storage with donor lungs meeting “standard criteria” for transplant. The first was a single center study at the Medical University of Vienna, that looked at 80 recipient/donor pairs. Lungs in the EVLP arm underwent 4 hours of perfusion with frequent reassessment of quality before transplant, whereas the lungs in the control arm went directly to transplant. This study met noninferiority criteria looking at primary outcomes of PGD grade >1 and 30-day survival (Slama A, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[7]:744). The second study was a phase 3, multicenter, international trial that included 320 recipient/donor pairs randomized to either EVLP (without a prespecified time on the EVLP system) or static cold storage. This trial met noninferiority for safety endpoints (lung graft-related adverse events within 30 days) and a composite primary outcome of PGD grade 3 incidence within 72 hours and 30-day survival (Warnecke G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6[5]:357). The authors also tested and found superiority of EVLP in lower PGD grade 3 frequency compared with control. While these RCTs may suggest a role for EVLP in the procurement process of standard criteria organs in addition to extended criteria organs in the future, major criticisms for these trials include the lack of a demonstrable clinical benefit over cold storage beyond the lower PGD3 rates.
In the era of direct-acting antiviral agents available to treat HCV infection, there has been efforts to study the early use of anti-HCV medications to prevent infection as a result of heart or lung transplant from HCV viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients. In one major trial on efficacy, it was found that 4 weeks of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, when started within a few hours of transplant, was sufficient to achieve a sustained (undetectable) virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of the antiviral regimen (Woolley AE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[17]:1606). Therefore, many transplant centers have adopted protocols to increase the donor pool (by CDC estimates about 4% of solid organ donors are HCV-positive) by accepting HCV nucleic acid amplification test (NAT)-positive donors for HCV-negative recipients, after appropriate informed consent.
Donation after cardiac death (DCD), which is alternatively known as donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD), generally refers to organ procurement taking place after cessation of circulation, often after inpatient withdrawal of support. This is in contrast to the much more common practice of donation after brain death (DBD). Addressing concerns over the quality of lungs donated in the context of DCD compared with DBD, analyses of ISHLT registry data have demonstrated no differences in hospital length of stay or survival at 1 or 5 years (Van Raemdonck D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38[12]:1235). Outcomes comparing specific mechanisms of donor death in DCD remain relatively unknown, such as outcomes from donors withdrawn from life support vs donors who had an uncontrolled cardiac death.
These methods for expanding the donor pool are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, application of EVLP for lungs obtained in the context of DCD seems to be increasingly common. Optimization of protocols with collaboration between lung transplant centers will be paramount as we move forward in advancing this field. As we do so, efforts to successfully increase the donor pool will serve to provide a life-saving therapy to an ever-growing number of patients with end-stage lung disease.
Dr. Sala and Dr. Tomic are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Lung transplants are increasing, with 2,562 performed in the United States in 2018 – a 31% increase over the preceding 5 years. With this increased demand for donor lungs, waitlist mortality in the United States is 9.4 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for obstructive lung diseases and as high as 29.7 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for restrictive lung diseases (Valapour M, et al. Lung. Am J Transplant. 2020;20[suppl s1]:427). Conversely, lungs are utilized from eligible multiorgan donors only 15% to 20% of the time, usually due to concerns over donor history or organ quality (Young KA, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:465). In light of this imbalance of supply and demand, lung transplant specialists are making significant efforts to expand the donor pool of available organs. Three of these strategies include: (1) applications of ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) technology; (2) use of lungs from hepatitis C-positive donors for hep-C negative recipients; and (3) increasing utilization of donation after cardiac death.
Normothermic ex-vivo lung perfusion is a technology which allows donor lungs to be perfused and ventilated after removal from the donor but before transplant into the recipient. This is in contrast to the traditional method of cold static preservation. The proposed advantage of using this technology is to allow time for a more thorough assessment of graft quality and to improve function of grafts not meeting established criteria for transplant, all-the-while decreasing organ ischemia despite an increased cross-clamp time. There are currently four commercial systems available capable of EVLP. Broadly speaking, three EVLP management protocols exist (Toronto, Lund, and OCS), which differ in perfusate composition, target flow, pulmonary arterial pressure, left atrial pressure, and ventilatory settings. Notably, the Toronto protocol uses a closed left atrium, whereas the Lund and OCS protocol use an open left atrium. There are excellent published reviews of the different systems (Possoz J, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11[4]:1635). EVLP has now been studied for two different goals: (1) to allow an extended evaluation of lungs of questionable quality before transplant; or (2) for routine use in all lung transplantations in place of cold static preservation.
In most studies concerning the use of EVLP for reconditioning of donor lungs, “high risk” or “extended criteria” refers to one or more of the following: P/F ratios < 300 on arterial blood gas, macroscopic abnormalities (eg, pulmonary edema, poor lung compliance), donation after circulatory death, or high-risk history (eg, aspiration). The largest cohort with the longest follow-up addressing the role of EVLP for donation of lungs with extended criteria was published from the Toronto Lung Transplant Group. Their results have demonstrated equivalent graft survival and rates of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) up to 9 years posttransplant compared with standard criteria donor lungs, despite utilizing lower quality lungs and having a longer median preservation (Divithotawela C, et al. JAMA Surg. 2019;154[12]:1143). The group’s subsequent lung transplant rates have increased over the past decade.
A separate study addressed the same question but differed in that it was a single-arm, multicenter, international trial that tracked the outcomes of 93 extended criteria lungs placed on EVLP (including a large proportion acquired via donation after circulatory death) (Loor G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[11]:975). Among these, 87% of eligible lungs were transplanted, and outcomes were excellent, albeit shorter in follow-up compared with the Toronto cohort (eg, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 (PGD3) within 72 hours was 44% and 1-year survival was 91%). Based on these trials and many other retrospective reports, it has been concluded by many experts in the field that EVLP-treated extended criteria donor lungs perform equally well to standard criteria donor lungs.
Two RCTs have been conducted to evaluate whether EVLP is noninferior to static cold storage with donor lungs meeting “standard criteria” for transplant. The first was a single center study at the Medical University of Vienna, that looked at 80 recipient/donor pairs. Lungs in the EVLP arm underwent 4 hours of perfusion with frequent reassessment of quality before transplant, whereas the lungs in the control arm went directly to transplant. This study met noninferiority criteria looking at primary outcomes of PGD grade >1 and 30-day survival (Slama A, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[7]:744). The second study was a phase 3, multicenter, international trial that included 320 recipient/donor pairs randomized to either EVLP (without a prespecified time on the EVLP system) or static cold storage. This trial met noninferiority for safety endpoints (lung graft-related adverse events within 30 days) and a composite primary outcome of PGD grade 3 incidence within 72 hours and 30-day survival (Warnecke G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6[5]:357). The authors also tested and found superiority of EVLP in lower PGD grade 3 frequency compared with control. While these RCTs may suggest a role for EVLP in the procurement process of standard criteria organs in addition to extended criteria organs in the future, major criticisms for these trials include the lack of a demonstrable clinical benefit over cold storage beyond the lower PGD3 rates.
In the era of direct-acting antiviral agents available to treat HCV infection, there has been efforts to study the early use of anti-HCV medications to prevent infection as a result of heart or lung transplant from HCV viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients. In one major trial on efficacy, it was found that 4 weeks of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, when started within a few hours of transplant, was sufficient to achieve a sustained (undetectable) virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of the antiviral regimen (Woolley AE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[17]:1606). Therefore, many transplant centers have adopted protocols to increase the donor pool (by CDC estimates about 4% of solid organ donors are HCV-positive) by accepting HCV nucleic acid amplification test (NAT)-positive donors for HCV-negative recipients, after appropriate informed consent.
Donation after cardiac death (DCD), which is alternatively known as donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD), generally refers to organ procurement taking place after cessation of circulation, often after inpatient withdrawal of support. This is in contrast to the much more common practice of donation after brain death (DBD). Addressing concerns over the quality of lungs donated in the context of DCD compared with DBD, analyses of ISHLT registry data have demonstrated no differences in hospital length of stay or survival at 1 or 5 years (Van Raemdonck D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38[12]:1235). Outcomes comparing specific mechanisms of donor death in DCD remain relatively unknown, such as outcomes from donors withdrawn from life support vs donors who had an uncontrolled cardiac death.
These methods for expanding the donor pool are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, application of EVLP for lungs obtained in the context of DCD seems to be increasingly common. Optimization of protocols with collaboration between lung transplant centers will be paramount as we move forward in advancing this field. As we do so, efforts to successfully increase the donor pool will serve to provide a life-saving therapy to an ever-growing number of patients with end-stage lung disease.
Dr. Sala and Dr. Tomic are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Lung transplants are increasing, with 2,562 performed in the United States in 2018 – a 31% increase over the preceding 5 years. With this increased demand for donor lungs, waitlist mortality in the United States is 9.4 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for obstructive lung diseases and as high as 29.7 deaths per 100 waitlist-years for restrictive lung diseases (Valapour M, et al. Lung. Am J Transplant. 2020;20[suppl s1]:427). Conversely, lungs are utilized from eligible multiorgan donors only 15% to 20% of the time, usually due to concerns over donor history or organ quality (Young KA, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:465). In light of this imbalance of supply and demand, lung transplant specialists are making significant efforts to expand the donor pool of available organs. Three of these strategies include: (1) applications of ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) technology; (2) use of lungs from hepatitis C-positive donors for hep-C negative recipients; and (3) increasing utilization of donation after cardiac death.
Normothermic ex-vivo lung perfusion is a technology which allows donor lungs to be perfused and ventilated after removal from the donor but before transplant into the recipient. This is in contrast to the traditional method of cold static preservation. The proposed advantage of using this technology is to allow time for a more thorough assessment of graft quality and to improve function of grafts not meeting established criteria for transplant, all-the-while decreasing organ ischemia despite an increased cross-clamp time. There are currently four commercial systems available capable of EVLP. Broadly speaking, three EVLP management protocols exist (Toronto, Lund, and OCS), which differ in perfusate composition, target flow, pulmonary arterial pressure, left atrial pressure, and ventilatory settings. Notably, the Toronto protocol uses a closed left atrium, whereas the Lund and OCS protocol use an open left atrium. There are excellent published reviews of the different systems (Possoz J, et al. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11[4]:1635). EVLP has now been studied for two different goals: (1) to allow an extended evaluation of lungs of questionable quality before transplant; or (2) for routine use in all lung transplantations in place of cold static preservation.
In most studies concerning the use of EVLP for reconditioning of donor lungs, “high risk” or “extended criteria” refers to one or more of the following: P/F ratios < 300 on arterial blood gas, macroscopic abnormalities (eg, pulmonary edema, poor lung compliance), donation after circulatory death, or high-risk history (eg, aspiration). The largest cohort with the longest follow-up addressing the role of EVLP for donation of lungs with extended criteria was published from the Toronto Lung Transplant Group. Their results have demonstrated equivalent graft survival and rates of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) up to 9 years posttransplant compared with standard criteria donor lungs, despite utilizing lower quality lungs and having a longer median preservation (Divithotawela C, et al. JAMA Surg. 2019;154[12]:1143). The group’s subsequent lung transplant rates have increased over the past decade.
A separate study addressed the same question but differed in that it was a single-arm, multicenter, international trial that tracked the outcomes of 93 extended criteria lungs placed on EVLP (including a large proportion acquired via donation after circulatory death) (Loor G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7[11]:975). Among these, 87% of eligible lungs were transplanted, and outcomes were excellent, albeit shorter in follow-up compared with the Toronto cohort (eg, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 (PGD3) within 72 hours was 44% and 1-year survival was 91%). Based on these trials and many other retrospective reports, it has been concluded by many experts in the field that EVLP-treated extended criteria donor lungs perform equally well to standard criteria donor lungs.
Two RCTs have been conducted to evaluate whether EVLP is noninferior to static cold storage with donor lungs meeting “standard criteria” for transplant. The first was a single center study at the Medical University of Vienna, that looked at 80 recipient/donor pairs. Lungs in the EVLP arm underwent 4 hours of perfusion with frequent reassessment of quality before transplant, whereas the lungs in the control arm went directly to transplant. This study met noninferiority criteria looking at primary outcomes of PGD grade >1 and 30-day survival (Slama A, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36[7]:744). The second study was a phase 3, multicenter, international trial that included 320 recipient/donor pairs randomized to either EVLP (without a prespecified time on the EVLP system) or static cold storage. This trial met noninferiority for safety endpoints (lung graft-related adverse events within 30 days) and a composite primary outcome of PGD grade 3 incidence within 72 hours and 30-day survival (Warnecke G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6[5]:357). The authors also tested and found superiority of EVLP in lower PGD grade 3 frequency compared with control. While these RCTs may suggest a role for EVLP in the procurement process of standard criteria organs in addition to extended criteria organs in the future, major criticisms for these trials include the lack of a demonstrable clinical benefit over cold storage beyond the lower PGD3 rates.
In the era of direct-acting antiviral agents available to treat HCV infection, there has been efforts to study the early use of anti-HCV medications to prevent infection as a result of heart or lung transplant from HCV viremic donors to HCV-negative recipients. In one major trial on efficacy, it was found that 4 weeks of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, when started within a few hours of transplant, was sufficient to achieve a sustained (undetectable) virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of the antiviral regimen (Woolley AE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[17]:1606). Therefore, many transplant centers have adopted protocols to increase the donor pool (by CDC estimates about 4% of solid organ donors are HCV-positive) by accepting HCV nucleic acid amplification test (NAT)-positive donors for HCV-negative recipients, after appropriate informed consent.
Donation after cardiac death (DCD), which is alternatively known as donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD), generally refers to organ procurement taking place after cessation of circulation, often after inpatient withdrawal of support. This is in contrast to the much more common practice of donation after brain death (DBD). Addressing concerns over the quality of lungs donated in the context of DCD compared with DBD, analyses of ISHLT registry data have demonstrated no differences in hospital length of stay or survival at 1 or 5 years (Van Raemdonck D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38[12]:1235). Outcomes comparing specific mechanisms of donor death in DCD remain relatively unknown, such as outcomes from donors withdrawn from life support vs donors who had an uncontrolled cardiac death.
These methods for expanding the donor pool are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, application of EVLP for lungs obtained in the context of DCD seems to be increasingly common. Optimization of protocols with collaboration between lung transplant centers will be paramount as we move forward in advancing this field. As we do so, efforts to successfully increase the donor pool will serve to provide a life-saving therapy to an ever-growing number of patients with end-stage lung disease.
Dr. Sala and Dr. Tomic are with the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Resurgence of black lung among U.S. coal miners
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Advances in technology over the last century, as well as the exportation of many high exposure jobs, nearly eliminated lung diseases caused by occupational exposure to respirable dust (the pneumoconioses) in the United States. One such example of this near elimination is black lung, or coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), following the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. The Act established permissible exposure limits to respirable dust, designed to prevent the most severe forms of CWP from occurring, and a national respiratory health screening program for underground coal miners. Between 1970 and the mid-1990s, disease prevalence plummeted from nearly 35% to less than 5% prevalence among longer tenured miners, and from 3% to less than 1% in miners with less than 10 years of mining tenure (Hall NB, et al. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2019;6[3]:137).
Many assumed that this was the last we'd hear of black lung - that the cases of disease existing in the 1990s were likely caused by exposures that occurred prior to the 1969 Act, and within a few years, no further cases would be detected. This appeared to be an entirely reasonable assumption in the 1990s given the 30 years of declining prevalence and the continuous technological advances designed to continue reductions in dust exposures. In fact, the precipitous decline in black lung was briefly viewed as a public health triumph, as the most severe forms appeared to be near eradication in the United States just 2 decades ago (Attfield MD, et al. Am J Public Health. 1992;82[7]:971; Attfield MD, et al. Am J Public Health. 1992;82[7]:964). However, what has since been observed is a strong and ongoing resurgence of the potentially deadly fibrotic interstitial disease starting in the early 2000s (Figure 1), with the most striking increase observed in the Central Appalachian states of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia (Blackley DJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190[6]:708; Blackley DJ, et al. Am J Public Health. 2018;108[9]:1220).
Of great concern is the resurgence of complicated Black Lung (progressive massive fibrosis [PMF]), which is completely disabling and leads to premature mortality. The prevalence of PMF is higher today than when NIOSH started formally tracking the disease in the 1970s, especially among specific populations.
Since the mid-2000s, NIOSH and others have described the following(Hall NB, et al. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2019;6[3]:137):
· Increasing prevalence and severity of CWP both nationwide and specifically in Central Appalachia.
· Rapid progression of CWP.
· Increases in the frequency of lung transplantation for CWP.
· Severe disease among surface coal miners with no underground mining tenure.
· Increased severity of disease among former and retired miners.
· Hundreds of cases of PMF among coal miners seeking care at clinics in eastern Kentucky and southwestern Virginia.
· Increasing numbers of miners with PMF filing for federal black lung compensation.
· Radiologic and pathologic indications of increased respirable silica exposure among coal miners.
· Premature mortality in miners diagnosed with CWP.
· Underutilization of a secondary prevention worker removal program designed to reduce the exposure of miners with disease.
· Former miners with severe disease describing extreme pressure to operate. outside of applicable protective federal standards in order to increase productivity
In our surveillance work, we have talked to many miners who, after having months or years' worth of extensive workups for pneumonia, sarcoidosis, lung cancer, and/or diseases other than the pneumoconioses, have eventually learned that they actually had dust-induced lung disease attributable to their work. Additionally, through our evaluation of the transplantation data, it has become clear that dust-related lung disease is likely underreported or underrecognized among those receiving lung transplants. Finally, through analysis of mortality data, it is apparent that CWP is also underreported as a cause of death among miners with black lung. We mention these points to emphasize how important it is to document a full occupational history for proper diagnoses, early intervention, and improved public health information to inform primary and secondary disease prevention efforts.
Resources for clinicians
CWP is most commonly identified using plain posterior-anterior chest radiography and presence/severity of fibrotic change is described using an international standard established by the International Labour Office (International Labour Office. Guidelines for the use of the ILO international classification of radiographs of pneumoconioses. Geneva: International Labour Office; 2011). In the United States, NIOSH operates the B Reader Training and Certification Program, which offers a free self-study syllabus, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/chestradiography/breader.html, and in-person training courses on occasion, to assist physicians in learning and demonstrating continuous competency in classifying chest radiographs of dust-exposed workers according to the ILO Standards (Halldin CN, et al. J Occup Environ Med. 2019;61[12]:1045). The B Reader Program and ILO Standards are currently undergoing a decade-long revision process where both will feature digitally acquired chest radiograph images. This process should be fully complete in the following months.
To educate miners, mine operators, and others about the risks of respirable dust, NIOSH produced an educational video, Faces of Black Lung, in 2008 that featured two miners in their 50s and 60s who had complicated Black Lung. Because of the resurgence of disease and particularly severe cases being identified among much younger miners, NIOSH recently released an updated version of the video, Faces of Black Lung II, where three Kentucky underground miners, ages 39, 42, and 48, describe the incredible disability and quality of life lost due to a disease caused by gross overexposure of respirable coal mine dust.
Unfortunately, the 42-year-old miner died from complications stemming from Black Lung less than a year after filming his part in the video, and the other two miners have been advised to be evaluated for lung transplantation. We hope that these men's stories will help younger miners relate to the risks of respirable coal mine dust and help others understand the severity of disease as all three of these men struggled to breathe just describing their day to day tasks.
Parting message
No one should ever have to consider a lung transplant at the age of 40 because they went to work attempting to provide for their family. No one should ever be faced with end-of-life planning while their kids are in grade school because of a disease they acquired at work. Respirable coal mine dust is the only cause of black lung, and the coal mining industry has the necessary technology and tools to prevent harmful exposures to respirable dust, and, together with miners, must successfully and consistently implement dust suppression controls. There is no cure for black lung; it's irreversible and can be first recognized and continue to progress even after a miner has left exposure. However, early identification and appropriate intervention can prevent progression to the most disabling manifestations. The role of the clinician is to be part of the early identification of black lung through including CWP in the differential diagnosis for unusual or unexpected respiratory illness in otherwise healthy primarily working aged miners. The public health community must continue to monitor disease prevalence in working populations and implement policies and recommendations to support the efforts of those on the frontline - the miners, industry, and health-care workers.
The Energy Information Agency projects that coal will continue to be a substantial source of U.S. energy production and consumption well into the mid- to late-century. Unfortunately, Black Lung has made a resurgence and is killing miners, and each of us has a role to play in eliminating it once and for all. We will continue to carry out our mandate to screen working coal miners for respiratory disease; however, given the continued contraction of the coal mining industry, it's much more likely for cases of disease to be recognized in the clinic setting. Therefore, we reiterate our previous plea to clinicians: when identifying an individual with interstitial fibrosis consider their full occupational history.
Dr. Halldin and Dr. Laney are from the Surveillance Branch, Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV.
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Advances in technology over the last century, as well as the exportation of many high exposure jobs, nearly eliminated lung diseases caused by occupational exposure to respirable dust (the pneumoconioses) in the United States. One such example of this near elimination is black lung, or coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), following the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. The Act established permissible exposure limits to respirable dust, designed to prevent the most severe forms of CWP from occurring, and a national respiratory health screening program for underground coal miners. Between 1970 and the mid-1990s, disease prevalence plummeted from nearly 35% to less than 5% prevalence among longer tenured miners, and from 3% to less than 1% in miners with less than 10 years of mining tenure (Hall NB, et al. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2019;6[3]:137).
Many assumed that this was the last we'd hear of black lung - that the cases of disease existing in the 1990s were likely caused by exposures that occurred prior to the 1969 Act, and within a few years, no further cases would be detected. This appeared to be an entirely reasonable assumption in the 1990s given the 30 years of declining prevalence and the continuous technological advances designed to continue reductions in dust exposures. In fact, the precipitous decline in black lung was briefly viewed as a public health triumph, as the most severe forms appeared to be near eradication in the United States just 2 decades ago (Attfield MD, et al. Am J Public Health. 1992;82[7]:971; Attfield MD, et al. Am J Public Health. 1992;82[7]:964). However, what has since been observed is a strong and ongoing resurgence of the potentially deadly fibrotic interstitial disease starting in the early 2000s (Figure 1), with the most striking increase observed in the Central Appalachian states of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia (Blackley DJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190[6]:708; Blackley DJ, et al. Am J Public Health. 2018;108[9]:1220).
Of great concern is the resurgence of complicated Black Lung (progressive massive fibrosis [PMF]), which is completely disabling and leads to premature mortality. The prevalence of PMF is higher today than when NIOSH started formally tracking the disease in the 1970s, especially among specific populations.
Since the mid-2000s, NIOSH and others have described the following(Hall NB, et al. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2019;6[3]:137):
· Increasing prevalence and severity of CWP both nationwide and specifically in Central Appalachia.
· Rapid progression of CWP.
· Increases in the frequency of lung transplantation for CWP.
· Severe disease among surface coal miners with no underground mining tenure.
· Increased severity of disease among former and retired miners.
· Hundreds of cases of PMF among coal miners seeking care at clinics in eastern Kentucky and southwestern Virginia.
· Increasing numbers of miners with PMF filing for federal black lung compensation.
· Radiologic and pathologic indications of increased respirable silica exposure among coal miners.
· Premature mortality in miners diagnosed with CWP.
· Underutilization of a secondary prevention worker removal program designed to reduce the exposure of miners with disease.
· Former miners with severe disease describing extreme pressure to operate. outside of applicable protective federal standards in order to increase productivity
In our surveillance work, we have talked to many miners who, after having months or years' worth of extensive workups for pneumonia, sarcoidosis, lung cancer, and/or diseases other than the pneumoconioses, have eventually learned that they actually had dust-induced lung disease attributable to their work. Additionally, through our evaluation of the transplantation data, it has become clear that dust-related lung disease is likely underreported or underrecognized among those receiving lung transplants. Finally, through analysis of mortality data, it is apparent that CWP is also underreported as a cause of death among miners with black lung. We mention these points to emphasize how important it is to document a full occupational history for proper diagnoses, early intervention, and improved public health information to inform primary and secondary disease prevention efforts.
Resources for clinicians
CWP is most commonly identified using plain posterior-anterior chest radiography and presence/severity of fibrotic change is described using an international standard established by the International Labour Office (International Labour Office. Guidelines for the use of the ILO international classification of radiographs of pneumoconioses. Geneva: International Labour Office; 2011). In the United States, NIOSH operates the B Reader Training and Certification Program, which offers a free self-study syllabus, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/chestradiography/breader.html, and in-person training courses on occasion, to assist physicians in learning and demonstrating continuous competency in classifying chest radiographs of dust-exposed workers according to the ILO Standards (Halldin CN, et al. J Occup Environ Med. 2019;61[12]:1045). The B Reader Program and ILO Standards are currently undergoing a decade-long revision process where both will feature digitally acquired chest radiograph images. This process should be fully complete in the following months.
To educate miners, mine operators, and others about the risks of respirable dust, NIOSH produced an educational video, Faces of Black Lung, in 2008 that featured two miners in their 50s and 60s who had complicated Black Lung. Because of the resurgence of disease and particularly severe cases being identified among much younger miners, NIOSH recently released an updated version of the video, Faces of Black Lung II, where three Kentucky underground miners, ages 39, 42, and 48, describe the incredible disability and quality of life lost due to a disease caused by gross overexposure of respirable coal mine dust.
Unfortunately, the 42-year-old miner died from complications stemming from Black Lung less than a year after filming his part in the video, and the other two miners have been advised to be evaluated for lung transplantation. We hope that these men's stories will help younger miners relate to the risks of respirable coal mine dust and help others understand the severity of disease as all three of these men struggled to breathe just describing their day to day tasks.
Parting message
No one should ever have to consider a lung transplant at the age of 40 because they went to work attempting to provide for their family. No one should ever be faced with end-of-life planning while their kids are in grade school because of a disease they acquired at work. Respirable coal mine dust is the only cause of black lung, and the coal mining industry has the necessary technology and tools to prevent harmful exposures to respirable dust, and, together with miners, must successfully and consistently implement dust suppression controls. There is no cure for black lung; it's irreversible and can be first recognized and continue to progress even after a miner has left exposure. However, early identification and appropriate intervention can prevent progression to the most disabling manifestations. The role of the clinician is to be part of the early identification of black lung through including CWP in the differential diagnosis for unusual or unexpected respiratory illness in otherwise healthy primarily working aged miners. The public health community must continue to monitor disease prevalence in working populations and implement policies and recommendations to support the efforts of those on the frontline - the miners, industry, and health-care workers.
The Energy Information Agency projects that coal will continue to be a substantial source of U.S. energy production and consumption well into the mid- to late-century. Unfortunately, Black Lung has made a resurgence and is killing miners, and each of us has a role to play in eliminating it once and for all. We will continue to carry out our mandate to screen working coal miners for respiratory disease; however, given the continued contraction of the coal mining industry, it's much more likely for cases of disease to be recognized in the clinic setting. Therefore, we reiterate our previous plea to clinicians: when identifying an individual with interstitial fibrosis consider their full occupational history.
Dr. Halldin and Dr. Laney are from the Surveillance Branch, Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV.
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Advances in technology over the last century, as well as the exportation of many high exposure jobs, nearly eliminated lung diseases caused by occupational exposure to respirable dust (the pneumoconioses) in the United States. One such example of this near elimination is black lung, or coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP), following the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. The Act established permissible exposure limits to respirable dust, designed to prevent the most severe forms of CWP from occurring, and a national respiratory health screening program for underground coal miners. Between 1970 and the mid-1990s, disease prevalence plummeted from nearly 35% to less than 5% prevalence among longer tenured miners, and from 3% to less than 1% in miners with less than 10 years of mining tenure (Hall NB, et al. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2019;6[3]:137).
Many assumed that this was the last we'd hear of black lung - that the cases of disease existing in the 1990s were likely caused by exposures that occurred prior to the 1969 Act, and within a few years, no further cases would be detected. This appeared to be an entirely reasonable assumption in the 1990s given the 30 years of declining prevalence and the continuous technological advances designed to continue reductions in dust exposures. In fact, the precipitous decline in black lung was briefly viewed as a public health triumph, as the most severe forms appeared to be near eradication in the United States just 2 decades ago (Attfield MD, et al. Am J Public Health. 1992;82[7]:971; Attfield MD, et al. Am J Public Health. 1992;82[7]:964). However, what has since been observed is a strong and ongoing resurgence of the potentially deadly fibrotic interstitial disease starting in the early 2000s (Figure 1), with the most striking increase observed in the Central Appalachian states of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia (Blackley DJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190[6]:708; Blackley DJ, et al. Am J Public Health. 2018;108[9]:1220).
Of great concern is the resurgence of complicated Black Lung (progressive massive fibrosis [PMF]), which is completely disabling and leads to premature mortality. The prevalence of PMF is higher today than when NIOSH started formally tracking the disease in the 1970s, especially among specific populations.
Since the mid-2000s, NIOSH and others have described the following(Hall NB, et al. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2019;6[3]:137):
· Increasing prevalence and severity of CWP both nationwide and specifically in Central Appalachia.
· Rapid progression of CWP.
· Increases in the frequency of lung transplantation for CWP.
· Severe disease among surface coal miners with no underground mining tenure.
· Increased severity of disease among former and retired miners.
· Hundreds of cases of PMF among coal miners seeking care at clinics in eastern Kentucky and southwestern Virginia.
· Increasing numbers of miners with PMF filing for federal black lung compensation.
· Radiologic and pathologic indications of increased respirable silica exposure among coal miners.
· Premature mortality in miners diagnosed with CWP.
· Underutilization of a secondary prevention worker removal program designed to reduce the exposure of miners with disease.
· Former miners with severe disease describing extreme pressure to operate. outside of applicable protective federal standards in order to increase productivity
In our surveillance work, we have talked to many miners who, after having months or years' worth of extensive workups for pneumonia, sarcoidosis, lung cancer, and/or diseases other than the pneumoconioses, have eventually learned that they actually had dust-induced lung disease attributable to their work. Additionally, through our evaluation of the transplantation data, it has become clear that dust-related lung disease is likely underreported or underrecognized among those receiving lung transplants. Finally, through analysis of mortality data, it is apparent that CWP is also underreported as a cause of death among miners with black lung. We mention these points to emphasize how important it is to document a full occupational history for proper diagnoses, early intervention, and improved public health information to inform primary and secondary disease prevention efforts.
Resources for clinicians
CWP is most commonly identified using plain posterior-anterior chest radiography and presence/severity of fibrotic change is described using an international standard established by the International Labour Office (International Labour Office. Guidelines for the use of the ILO international classification of radiographs of pneumoconioses. Geneva: International Labour Office; 2011). In the United States, NIOSH operates the B Reader Training and Certification Program, which offers a free self-study syllabus, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/chestradiography/breader.html, and in-person training courses on occasion, to assist physicians in learning and demonstrating continuous competency in classifying chest radiographs of dust-exposed workers according to the ILO Standards (Halldin CN, et al. J Occup Environ Med. 2019;61[12]:1045). The B Reader Program and ILO Standards are currently undergoing a decade-long revision process where both will feature digitally acquired chest radiograph images. This process should be fully complete in the following months.
To educate miners, mine operators, and others about the risks of respirable dust, NIOSH produced an educational video, Faces of Black Lung, in 2008 that featured two miners in their 50s and 60s who had complicated Black Lung. Because of the resurgence of disease and particularly severe cases being identified among much younger miners, NIOSH recently released an updated version of the video, Faces of Black Lung II, where three Kentucky underground miners, ages 39, 42, and 48, describe the incredible disability and quality of life lost due to a disease caused by gross overexposure of respirable coal mine dust.
Unfortunately, the 42-year-old miner died from complications stemming from Black Lung less than a year after filming his part in the video, and the other two miners have been advised to be evaluated for lung transplantation. We hope that these men's stories will help younger miners relate to the risks of respirable coal mine dust and help others understand the severity of disease as all three of these men struggled to breathe just describing their day to day tasks.
Parting message
No one should ever have to consider a lung transplant at the age of 40 because they went to work attempting to provide for their family. No one should ever be faced with end-of-life planning while their kids are in grade school because of a disease they acquired at work. Respirable coal mine dust is the only cause of black lung, and the coal mining industry has the necessary technology and tools to prevent harmful exposures to respirable dust, and, together with miners, must successfully and consistently implement dust suppression controls. There is no cure for black lung; it's irreversible and can be first recognized and continue to progress even after a miner has left exposure. However, early identification and appropriate intervention can prevent progression to the most disabling manifestations. The role of the clinician is to be part of the early identification of black lung through including CWP in the differential diagnosis for unusual or unexpected respiratory illness in otherwise healthy primarily working aged miners. The public health community must continue to monitor disease prevalence in working populations and implement policies and recommendations to support the efforts of those on the frontline - the miners, industry, and health-care workers.
The Energy Information Agency projects that coal will continue to be a substantial source of U.S. energy production and consumption well into the mid- to late-century. Unfortunately, Black Lung has made a resurgence and is killing miners, and each of us has a role to play in eliminating it once and for all. We will continue to carry out our mandate to screen working coal miners for respiratory disease; however, given the continued contraction of the coal mining industry, it's much more likely for cases of disease to be recognized in the clinic setting. Therefore, we reiterate our previous plea to clinicians: when identifying an individual with interstitial fibrosis consider their full occupational history.
Dr. Halldin and Dr. Laney are from the Surveillance Branch, Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, WV.
An update on the current standard for ultrasound education in fellowship
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an essential part of ICU care. It has been demonstrated to improve patient safety and outcomes through procedural guidance (Brass P, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 9;1:CD006962) and aid in accurate and timely diagnosis of cardiopulmonary failure (Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA. Chest. 2008 Jul;134[1]:117-25). Due in part to increasing affordability and portability of ultrasound technologies, the use of POCUS has become seemingly ubiquitous and will continue to increase in coming years. According to expert groups representing 12 critical care societies worldwide, general critical care ultrasound and basic critical care echocardiography should be mandatory training for ICU physicians (Expert Round Table on Ultrasound in ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37[7]:1077-83).
Currently, POCUS is not universally taught to pulmonary and critical care fellows (PCCM); and when training does exist, curriculums are not standardized. This is in part due to the broadly worded requirements set forth from the ACGME for pulmonary disease and critical care medicine. The totality of ACGME common program requirements as it regards to ultrasound training are as follows: 1. “Fellows must demonstrate competence in procedural and technical skills, including ... use of ultrasound techniques to perform thoracentesis and place intravascular and intracavitary tubes and catheters”; and 2. “Fellows must demonstrate knowledge of imaging techniques commonly employed in the evaluation of patients with pulmonary disease or critical illness, including the use of ultrasound” (ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine).
In comparison, recently updated ACGME common program requirements for ultrasound in emergency medicine and anesthesiology residencies are robust and detailed. Requirements for anesthesia residency training include: ” ... competency in using surface ultrasound ... and transthoracic echocardiography to guide the performance of invasive procedures and to evaluate organ function and pathology ... understanding the principles of ultrasound, including the physics of ultrasound transmission, ultrasound transducer construction, and transducer selection for specific applications, to include being able to obtain images with an understanding of limitations and artifacts ... obtaining standard views of the heart and inferior vena cava with transthoracic echocardiography allowing the evaluation of myocardial function, estimation of central venous pressure, and gross pericardial/cardiac pathology (eg, large pericardial effusion) ... using transthoracic ultrasound for the detection of pneumothorax and pleural effusion ... using surface ultrasound to guide vascular access (both central and peripheral) ... describing techniques, views, and findings in standard language” (ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education In Anesthesiology).
Herein lies a stark contrast in what is required of programs that train physicians to care for unstable patients and the critically ill. Current requirements leave graduates of PCCM training programs vulnerable to completing ACGME milestones without being adequately prepared to evaluate patients in a modern ICU setting. Increasingly, hospitals credentialing committees expect PCCM graduates to be suitably trained in ultrasound. Regrettably, there is no assurance that is true, or standardized, with current PCCM fellowship training requirements.
There is not a national standard for competency assessment or requirements for credentialing in POCUS for critical care physicians at this time. However, multiple national and international critical care societies, including CHEST, have consensus statements and recommendations outlining the areas of competence expected in critical care ultrasound (Mayo PH, et al. Chest. 2009 Apr;135[4];1050-60, Expert Round Table on Ultrasound in ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37(7):1077-83). The PCCM ACGME requirements should be updated to reflect such recommendations, thereby placing greater emphasis on ultrasound teaching requirements and standardized curriculums. Despite the current ACGME program requirements, it is incumbent upon critical care training programs to provide competency-based education of this now “standard of care” technology.
Barriers to universal POCUS training exist. Fellowship programs may lack trained, ultrasound confident faculty, time, and funding to successfully develop and sustain an ultrasound curriculum. (Eisen LA, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38[10]:1978-83; Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12: [Epub ahead of print].)
Although access to adequate quality and quantity of ultrasound machines is less often a problem than in the past, many institutions lack archival and image review software that allows for quality assurance of image acquisition, and some still may not have a faculty member with expertise and ability to champion the cause.
In attempts to mitigate the local faculty gaps, national and regional solutions have been developed for ultrasonography education. CHEST has educated more than 1,400 learners in the Ultrasound Essentials course since 2013. Also, grassroots efforts have led to the development of courses specifically designed to teach incoming PCCM fellows. Using a collaborative and cost-effective model, these regional programs pool faculty and experts in the field to train multiple fellowship programs simultaneously. The first of these was created over a decade ago in New York City (Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12:[Epub ahead of print].)
Currently, there are at least four regional annual ultrasound courses directed at teaching PCCM fellows. These courses are typically held over multiple days and encompass the basics of critical care ultrasound, including vascular, thoracic, abdominal, cardiac, and procedural imaging. By estimation, these four courses provide a basic ultrasonography education to approximately two-thirds of first year pulmonary and critical care fellows in the United States. In addition to training fellows, these programs also serve as a platform for the development of local faculty experts, so that training can continue at their institutions.
Introductory courses are highly effective (Dinh VA, et al. Crit Care Res Pract. 2015 Aug 5:675041 Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12: [Epub ahead of print]), but ongoing education, assessment, and quality assurance is required to achieve sustained competence. Ideally, training in POCUS should entail a dedicated, intensive introduction to the competencies of critical care ultrasound (such as the above regional courses or CHEST ultrasound courses), followed by a formal curriculum within the PCCM fellowship programs. This curriculum should afford the trainee exposure to critically ill patients in an environment with adequate ultrasound equipment and a method to record studies. The trainee then interprets the acquired studies in clinical context. Preferably, the program will afford the trainee real-time quality assurance for image acquisition and interpretation by a program champion. Quality assurance can be provided on site or remotely using fixed interval review sessions. Lastly, the program should have internal milestones to evaluate when a trainee has reached competency to perform these tasks independently. The completion of training should include a letter to any future employee attesting to the trainee’s acquisition of these skills and ability to apply them safely while caring for the critically ill. This robust education is occurring in many centers across the country. PCCM fellowship programs owe it to their trainees, and patients, that competency-based critical care ultrasound training is robust, standardized, and supported.
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an essential part of ICU care. It has been demonstrated to improve patient safety and outcomes through procedural guidance (Brass P, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 9;1:CD006962) and aid in accurate and timely diagnosis of cardiopulmonary failure (Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA. Chest. 2008 Jul;134[1]:117-25). Due in part to increasing affordability and portability of ultrasound technologies, the use of POCUS has become seemingly ubiquitous and will continue to increase in coming years. According to expert groups representing 12 critical care societies worldwide, general critical care ultrasound and basic critical care echocardiography should be mandatory training for ICU physicians (Expert Round Table on Ultrasound in ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37[7]:1077-83).
Currently, POCUS is not universally taught to pulmonary and critical care fellows (PCCM); and when training does exist, curriculums are not standardized. This is in part due to the broadly worded requirements set forth from the ACGME for pulmonary disease and critical care medicine. The totality of ACGME common program requirements as it regards to ultrasound training are as follows: 1. “Fellows must demonstrate competence in procedural and technical skills, including ... use of ultrasound techniques to perform thoracentesis and place intravascular and intracavitary tubes and catheters”; and 2. “Fellows must demonstrate knowledge of imaging techniques commonly employed in the evaluation of patients with pulmonary disease or critical illness, including the use of ultrasound” (ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine).
In comparison, recently updated ACGME common program requirements for ultrasound in emergency medicine and anesthesiology residencies are robust and detailed. Requirements for anesthesia residency training include: ” ... competency in using surface ultrasound ... and transthoracic echocardiography to guide the performance of invasive procedures and to evaluate organ function and pathology ... understanding the principles of ultrasound, including the physics of ultrasound transmission, ultrasound transducer construction, and transducer selection for specific applications, to include being able to obtain images with an understanding of limitations and artifacts ... obtaining standard views of the heart and inferior vena cava with transthoracic echocardiography allowing the evaluation of myocardial function, estimation of central venous pressure, and gross pericardial/cardiac pathology (eg, large pericardial effusion) ... using transthoracic ultrasound for the detection of pneumothorax and pleural effusion ... using surface ultrasound to guide vascular access (both central and peripheral) ... describing techniques, views, and findings in standard language” (ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education In Anesthesiology).
Herein lies a stark contrast in what is required of programs that train physicians to care for unstable patients and the critically ill. Current requirements leave graduates of PCCM training programs vulnerable to completing ACGME milestones without being adequately prepared to evaluate patients in a modern ICU setting. Increasingly, hospitals credentialing committees expect PCCM graduates to be suitably trained in ultrasound. Regrettably, there is no assurance that is true, or standardized, with current PCCM fellowship training requirements.
There is not a national standard for competency assessment or requirements for credentialing in POCUS for critical care physicians at this time. However, multiple national and international critical care societies, including CHEST, have consensus statements and recommendations outlining the areas of competence expected in critical care ultrasound (Mayo PH, et al. Chest. 2009 Apr;135[4];1050-60, Expert Round Table on Ultrasound in ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37(7):1077-83). The PCCM ACGME requirements should be updated to reflect such recommendations, thereby placing greater emphasis on ultrasound teaching requirements and standardized curriculums. Despite the current ACGME program requirements, it is incumbent upon critical care training programs to provide competency-based education of this now “standard of care” technology.
Barriers to universal POCUS training exist. Fellowship programs may lack trained, ultrasound confident faculty, time, and funding to successfully develop and sustain an ultrasound curriculum. (Eisen LA, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38[10]:1978-83; Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12: [Epub ahead of print].)
Although access to adequate quality and quantity of ultrasound machines is less often a problem than in the past, many institutions lack archival and image review software that allows for quality assurance of image acquisition, and some still may not have a faculty member with expertise and ability to champion the cause.
In attempts to mitigate the local faculty gaps, national and regional solutions have been developed for ultrasonography education. CHEST has educated more than 1,400 learners in the Ultrasound Essentials course since 2013. Also, grassroots efforts have led to the development of courses specifically designed to teach incoming PCCM fellows. Using a collaborative and cost-effective model, these regional programs pool faculty and experts in the field to train multiple fellowship programs simultaneously. The first of these was created over a decade ago in New York City (Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12:[Epub ahead of print].)
Currently, there are at least four regional annual ultrasound courses directed at teaching PCCM fellows. These courses are typically held over multiple days and encompass the basics of critical care ultrasound, including vascular, thoracic, abdominal, cardiac, and procedural imaging. By estimation, these four courses provide a basic ultrasonography education to approximately two-thirds of first year pulmonary and critical care fellows in the United States. In addition to training fellows, these programs also serve as a platform for the development of local faculty experts, so that training can continue at their institutions.
Introductory courses are highly effective (Dinh VA, et al. Crit Care Res Pract. 2015 Aug 5:675041 Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12: [Epub ahead of print]), but ongoing education, assessment, and quality assurance is required to achieve sustained competence. Ideally, training in POCUS should entail a dedicated, intensive introduction to the competencies of critical care ultrasound (such as the above regional courses or CHEST ultrasound courses), followed by a formal curriculum within the PCCM fellowship programs. This curriculum should afford the trainee exposure to critically ill patients in an environment with adequate ultrasound equipment and a method to record studies. The trainee then interprets the acquired studies in clinical context. Preferably, the program will afford the trainee real-time quality assurance for image acquisition and interpretation by a program champion. Quality assurance can be provided on site or remotely using fixed interval review sessions. Lastly, the program should have internal milestones to evaluate when a trainee has reached competency to perform these tasks independently. The completion of training should include a letter to any future employee attesting to the trainee’s acquisition of these skills and ability to apply them safely while caring for the critically ill. This robust education is occurring in many centers across the country. PCCM fellowship programs owe it to their trainees, and patients, that competency-based critical care ultrasound training is robust, standardized, and supported.
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is an essential part of ICU care. It has been demonstrated to improve patient safety and outcomes through procedural guidance (Brass P, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 9;1:CD006962) and aid in accurate and timely diagnosis of cardiopulmonary failure (Lichtenstein DA, Mezière GA. Chest. 2008 Jul;134[1]:117-25). Due in part to increasing affordability and portability of ultrasound technologies, the use of POCUS has become seemingly ubiquitous and will continue to increase in coming years. According to expert groups representing 12 critical care societies worldwide, general critical care ultrasound and basic critical care echocardiography should be mandatory training for ICU physicians (Expert Round Table on Ultrasound in ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37[7]:1077-83).
Currently, POCUS is not universally taught to pulmonary and critical care fellows (PCCM); and when training does exist, curriculums are not standardized. This is in part due to the broadly worded requirements set forth from the ACGME for pulmonary disease and critical care medicine. The totality of ACGME common program requirements as it regards to ultrasound training are as follows: 1. “Fellows must demonstrate competence in procedural and technical skills, including ... use of ultrasound techniques to perform thoracentesis and place intravascular and intracavitary tubes and catheters”; and 2. “Fellows must demonstrate knowledge of imaging techniques commonly employed in the evaluation of patients with pulmonary disease or critical illness, including the use of ultrasound” (ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine).
In comparison, recently updated ACGME common program requirements for ultrasound in emergency medicine and anesthesiology residencies are robust and detailed. Requirements for anesthesia residency training include: ” ... competency in using surface ultrasound ... and transthoracic echocardiography to guide the performance of invasive procedures and to evaluate organ function and pathology ... understanding the principles of ultrasound, including the physics of ultrasound transmission, ultrasound transducer construction, and transducer selection for specific applications, to include being able to obtain images with an understanding of limitations and artifacts ... obtaining standard views of the heart and inferior vena cava with transthoracic echocardiography allowing the evaluation of myocardial function, estimation of central venous pressure, and gross pericardial/cardiac pathology (eg, large pericardial effusion) ... using transthoracic ultrasound for the detection of pneumothorax and pleural effusion ... using surface ultrasound to guide vascular access (both central and peripheral) ... describing techniques, views, and findings in standard language” (ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education In Anesthesiology).
Herein lies a stark contrast in what is required of programs that train physicians to care for unstable patients and the critically ill. Current requirements leave graduates of PCCM training programs vulnerable to completing ACGME milestones without being adequately prepared to evaluate patients in a modern ICU setting. Increasingly, hospitals credentialing committees expect PCCM graduates to be suitably trained in ultrasound. Regrettably, there is no assurance that is true, or standardized, with current PCCM fellowship training requirements.
There is not a national standard for competency assessment or requirements for credentialing in POCUS for critical care physicians at this time. However, multiple national and international critical care societies, including CHEST, have consensus statements and recommendations outlining the areas of competence expected in critical care ultrasound (Mayo PH, et al. Chest. 2009 Apr;135[4];1050-60, Expert Round Table on Ultrasound in ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2011 Jul;37(7):1077-83). The PCCM ACGME requirements should be updated to reflect such recommendations, thereby placing greater emphasis on ultrasound teaching requirements and standardized curriculums. Despite the current ACGME program requirements, it is incumbent upon critical care training programs to provide competency-based education of this now “standard of care” technology.
Barriers to universal POCUS training exist. Fellowship programs may lack trained, ultrasound confident faculty, time, and funding to successfully develop and sustain an ultrasound curriculum. (Eisen LA, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38[10]:1978-83; Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12: [Epub ahead of print].)
Although access to adequate quality and quantity of ultrasound machines is less often a problem than in the past, many institutions lack archival and image review software that allows for quality assurance of image acquisition, and some still may not have a faculty member with expertise and ability to champion the cause.
In attempts to mitigate the local faculty gaps, national and regional solutions have been developed for ultrasonography education. CHEST has educated more than 1,400 learners in the Ultrasound Essentials course since 2013. Also, grassroots efforts have led to the development of courses specifically designed to teach incoming PCCM fellows. Using a collaborative and cost-effective model, these regional programs pool faculty and experts in the field to train multiple fellowship programs simultaneously. The first of these was created over a decade ago in New York City (Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12:[Epub ahead of print].)
Currently, there are at least four regional annual ultrasound courses directed at teaching PCCM fellows. These courses are typically held over multiple days and encompass the basics of critical care ultrasound, including vascular, thoracic, abdominal, cardiac, and procedural imaging. By estimation, these four courses provide a basic ultrasonography education to approximately two-thirds of first year pulmonary and critical care fellows in the United States. In addition to training fellows, these programs also serve as a platform for the development of local faculty experts, so that training can continue at their institutions.
Introductory courses are highly effective (Dinh VA, et al. Crit Care Res Pract. 2015 Aug 5:675041 Patrawalla P, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Feb 12: [Epub ahead of print]), but ongoing education, assessment, and quality assurance is required to achieve sustained competence. Ideally, training in POCUS should entail a dedicated, intensive introduction to the competencies of critical care ultrasound (such as the above regional courses or CHEST ultrasound courses), followed by a formal curriculum within the PCCM fellowship programs. This curriculum should afford the trainee exposure to critically ill patients in an environment with adequate ultrasound equipment and a method to record studies. The trainee then interprets the acquired studies in clinical context. Preferably, the program will afford the trainee real-time quality assurance for image acquisition and interpretation by a program champion. Quality assurance can be provided on site or remotely using fixed interval review sessions. Lastly, the program should have internal milestones to evaluate when a trainee has reached competency to perform these tasks independently. The completion of training should include a letter to any future employee attesting to the trainee’s acquisition of these skills and ability to apply them safely while caring for the critically ill. This robust education is occurring in many centers across the country. PCCM fellowship programs owe it to their trainees, and patients, that competency-based critical care ultrasound training is robust, standardized, and supported.