User login
Early-Onset Asthma May Slow Memory Development
Children with asthma scored significantly lower than those without asthma on measures of episodic memory, based on longitudinal data from nearly 500 individuals.
Animal models have shown associations between asthma and memory problems, but data for children are lacking, wrote Nicholas J. Christopher-Hayes, MA, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.
“Asthma is very frequent among children, and there is mounting evidence from rodent models that asthma may result in neural injury in the hippocampus, which in turn may cause memory loss,” Christopher-Hayes said in an interview. “Although there is also a good amount of research with older adults, very little research has been done with children, the period that is most frequently linked to asthma onset,” he said. Therefore, the researchers leveraged a large national study on child development to examine development of memory as a function of asthma exposure.
In this study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers conducted both a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which began in 2015. Children were enrolled at ages 9-10 years with a follow-up assessment 1-2 years later.
The participants were categorized as early childhood-onset asthma (asthma at baseline and follow-up), later childhood-onset asthma (asthma at follow-up only), or no asthma history. The primary outcome of the longitudinal analysis was episodic memory. Approximately half of the participants were boys, and slightly more than half were White.
Overall, those with early-onset asthma showed significantly lower rates of longitudinal memory improvements at follow-up compared with the comparison group (P < .01).
Developmental memory improvement in children with later-onset asthma was not significantly different from the control individuals.
Secondary outcomes included processing speed and inhibition, and attention. In a cross-sectional analysis with a larger sample of 2062 children from the same database (1031 with any asthma), those with asthma scored significantly lower on measures not only of episodic memory but also processing speed and inhibition/attention than children with no asthma, with P values of .04, .01, and .02, respectively.
The results were limited by several factors, including the reliance on parent reports for indicators of asthma and the lack of data on the potential effect of prescription corticosteroid use on neurocognitive development, the researchers noted.
The mechanism behind the association remains unclear; the inflammation associated with asthma may disrupt neural processing and manifest as cognitive dysfunction, as has been seen in rodent models of asthma, the researchers wrote. “It is possible that associations between asthma and developmental trajectories emerge earlier for memory, perhaps due to its sensitivity to subtle hippocampal injury,” they noted.
Longer follow-up studies are needed to fully understand how childhood asthma predicts memory declines or difficulties in childhood and beyond, said Christopher-Hayes. “We also need additional studies to understand why children who were diagnosed earlier and had asthma for longer seem to be particularly affected,” he said.
The results of this study were consistent with previous findings and therefore not surprising, senior author Simona Ghetti, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. However, the finding that the extent of exposure to asthma was associated with slower memory improvement in childhood was striking, she said. That children with an earlier asthma onset who had disease indicators for a longer period showed a slower development of memory over time, suggests that asthma exposure may affect the developmental trajectory of memory, Ghetti noted.
“Recommendations to clinicians are premature because we need a better understanding of the boundary conditions, such as the minimal level of asthma exposure that might generate memory difficulties,” said Ghetti.
“Nevertheless, our results underscore the importance of looking at asthma as a potential source of cognitive difficulty in children,” she said.
Asthma’s Extensive Effect
Evidence is mounting that a diagnosis of asthma may have implications outside the pulmonary system, Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief of the Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care at UT Health, San Antonio, said in an interview.
“Asthmatics may be at risk of nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic conditions, but there is emerging of evidence inflammation associated with asthma may affect other organ systems,” said Maselli, who was not involved in the study.
“For example, chronic inflammation in asthmatics may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Although less is known about the effects of asthma on the nervous system, animal models suggest that inflammation associated with asthma may result in neuronal injury and potential effects on memory, said Maselli.
The findings of this study provide evidence of potential detrimental effects on the memory of children with asthma but should be interpreted with caution, Maselli said. “Children with chronic medical conditions may have an inherent disadvantage compared with their peers due to the burden of their disease, medication utilization and side effects, absenteeism from school, physical limitations, and other disease-specific circumstances,” he noted.
“Uncontrolled asthma, in particular, has strong links to low socioeconomic factors that are closely tied to access to adequate medical care, nutrition, educational institutions, and other relevant contributors to normal cognitive development,” Maselli said. Although the authors account for some of these socioeconomic factors by evaluating income and race, other variables may have influenced the results, he added.
Overall, this study’s findings suggested that the diagnosis of asthma in children may be associated with memory deficits and may influence neurodevelopment; however, more research is needed to determine whether the findings are replicated in other cohorts, said Maselli. “In particular, evaluating the effects of the severity of asthma and different asthma endotypes would be crucial to identify children with a higher risk of memory or cognitive deficits and confirm these associations,” he said.
This study was funded by the Memory and Plasticity Program at the University of California, Davis, and by a Learning, Memory, and Plasticity Training Program Fellowship grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Maselli had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Children with asthma scored significantly lower than those without asthma on measures of episodic memory, based on longitudinal data from nearly 500 individuals.
Animal models have shown associations between asthma and memory problems, but data for children are lacking, wrote Nicholas J. Christopher-Hayes, MA, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.
“Asthma is very frequent among children, and there is mounting evidence from rodent models that asthma may result in neural injury in the hippocampus, which in turn may cause memory loss,” Christopher-Hayes said in an interview. “Although there is also a good amount of research with older adults, very little research has been done with children, the period that is most frequently linked to asthma onset,” he said. Therefore, the researchers leveraged a large national study on child development to examine development of memory as a function of asthma exposure.
In this study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers conducted both a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which began in 2015. Children were enrolled at ages 9-10 years with a follow-up assessment 1-2 years later.
The participants were categorized as early childhood-onset asthma (asthma at baseline and follow-up), later childhood-onset asthma (asthma at follow-up only), or no asthma history. The primary outcome of the longitudinal analysis was episodic memory. Approximately half of the participants were boys, and slightly more than half were White.
Overall, those with early-onset asthma showed significantly lower rates of longitudinal memory improvements at follow-up compared with the comparison group (P < .01).
Developmental memory improvement in children with later-onset asthma was not significantly different from the control individuals.
Secondary outcomes included processing speed and inhibition, and attention. In a cross-sectional analysis with a larger sample of 2062 children from the same database (1031 with any asthma), those with asthma scored significantly lower on measures not only of episodic memory but also processing speed and inhibition/attention than children with no asthma, with P values of .04, .01, and .02, respectively.
The results were limited by several factors, including the reliance on parent reports for indicators of asthma and the lack of data on the potential effect of prescription corticosteroid use on neurocognitive development, the researchers noted.
The mechanism behind the association remains unclear; the inflammation associated with asthma may disrupt neural processing and manifest as cognitive dysfunction, as has been seen in rodent models of asthma, the researchers wrote. “It is possible that associations between asthma and developmental trajectories emerge earlier for memory, perhaps due to its sensitivity to subtle hippocampal injury,” they noted.
Longer follow-up studies are needed to fully understand how childhood asthma predicts memory declines or difficulties in childhood and beyond, said Christopher-Hayes. “We also need additional studies to understand why children who were diagnosed earlier and had asthma for longer seem to be particularly affected,” he said.
The results of this study were consistent with previous findings and therefore not surprising, senior author Simona Ghetti, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. However, the finding that the extent of exposure to asthma was associated with slower memory improvement in childhood was striking, she said. That children with an earlier asthma onset who had disease indicators for a longer period showed a slower development of memory over time, suggests that asthma exposure may affect the developmental trajectory of memory, Ghetti noted.
“Recommendations to clinicians are premature because we need a better understanding of the boundary conditions, such as the minimal level of asthma exposure that might generate memory difficulties,” said Ghetti.
“Nevertheless, our results underscore the importance of looking at asthma as a potential source of cognitive difficulty in children,” she said.
Asthma’s Extensive Effect
Evidence is mounting that a diagnosis of asthma may have implications outside the pulmonary system, Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief of the Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care at UT Health, San Antonio, said in an interview.
“Asthmatics may be at risk of nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic conditions, but there is emerging of evidence inflammation associated with asthma may affect other organ systems,” said Maselli, who was not involved in the study.
“For example, chronic inflammation in asthmatics may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Although less is known about the effects of asthma on the nervous system, animal models suggest that inflammation associated with asthma may result in neuronal injury and potential effects on memory, said Maselli.
The findings of this study provide evidence of potential detrimental effects on the memory of children with asthma but should be interpreted with caution, Maselli said. “Children with chronic medical conditions may have an inherent disadvantage compared with their peers due to the burden of their disease, medication utilization and side effects, absenteeism from school, physical limitations, and other disease-specific circumstances,” he noted.
“Uncontrolled asthma, in particular, has strong links to low socioeconomic factors that are closely tied to access to adequate medical care, nutrition, educational institutions, and other relevant contributors to normal cognitive development,” Maselli said. Although the authors account for some of these socioeconomic factors by evaluating income and race, other variables may have influenced the results, he added.
Overall, this study’s findings suggested that the diagnosis of asthma in children may be associated with memory deficits and may influence neurodevelopment; however, more research is needed to determine whether the findings are replicated in other cohorts, said Maselli. “In particular, evaluating the effects of the severity of asthma and different asthma endotypes would be crucial to identify children with a higher risk of memory or cognitive deficits and confirm these associations,” he said.
This study was funded by the Memory and Plasticity Program at the University of California, Davis, and by a Learning, Memory, and Plasticity Training Program Fellowship grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Maselli had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Children with asthma scored significantly lower than those without asthma on measures of episodic memory, based on longitudinal data from nearly 500 individuals.
Animal models have shown associations between asthma and memory problems, but data for children are lacking, wrote Nicholas J. Christopher-Hayes, MA, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.
“Asthma is very frequent among children, and there is mounting evidence from rodent models that asthma may result in neural injury in the hippocampus, which in turn may cause memory loss,” Christopher-Hayes said in an interview. “Although there is also a good amount of research with older adults, very little research has been done with children, the period that is most frequently linked to asthma onset,” he said. Therefore, the researchers leveraged a large national study on child development to examine development of memory as a function of asthma exposure.
In this study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers conducted both a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which began in 2015. Children were enrolled at ages 9-10 years with a follow-up assessment 1-2 years later.
The participants were categorized as early childhood-onset asthma (asthma at baseline and follow-up), later childhood-onset asthma (asthma at follow-up only), or no asthma history. The primary outcome of the longitudinal analysis was episodic memory. Approximately half of the participants were boys, and slightly more than half were White.
Overall, those with early-onset asthma showed significantly lower rates of longitudinal memory improvements at follow-up compared with the comparison group (P < .01).
Developmental memory improvement in children with later-onset asthma was not significantly different from the control individuals.
Secondary outcomes included processing speed and inhibition, and attention. In a cross-sectional analysis with a larger sample of 2062 children from the same database (1031 with any asthma), those with asthma scored significantly lower on measures not only of episodic memory but also processing speed and inhibition/attention than children with no asthma, with P values of .04, .01, and .02, respectively.
The results were limited by several factors, including the reliance on parent reports for indicators of asthma and the lack of data on the potential effect of prescription corticosteroid use on neurocognitive development, the researchers noted.
The mechanism behind the association remains unclear; the inflammation associated with asthma may disrupt neural processing and manifest as cognitive dysfunction, as has been seen in rodent models of asthma, the researchers wrote. “It is possible that associations between asthma and developmental trajectories emerge earlier for memory, perhaps due to its sensitivity to subtle hippocampal injury,” they noted.
Longer follow-up studies are needed to fully understand how childhood asthma predicts memory declines or difficulties in childhood and beyond, said Christopher-Hayes. “We also need additional studies to understand why children who were diagnosed earlier and had asthma for longer seem to be particularly affected,” he said.
The results of this study were consistent with previous findings and therefore not surprising, senior author Simona Ghetti, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview. However, the finding that the extent of exposure to asthma was associated with slower memory improvement in childhood was striking, she said. That children with an earlier asthma onset who had disease indicators for a longer period showed a slower development of memory over time, suggests that asthma exposure may affect the developmental trajectory of memory, Ghetti noted.
“Recommendations to clinicians are premature because we need a better understanding of the boundary conditions, such as the minimal level of asthma exposure that might generate memory difficulties,” said Ghetti.
“Nevertheless, our results underscore the importance of looking at asthma as a potential source of cognitive difficulty in children,” she said.
Asthma’s Extensive Effect
Evidence is mounting that a diagnosis of asthma may have implications outside the pulmonary system, Diego J. Maselli, MD, professor and chief of the Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care at UT Health, San Antonio, said in an interview.
“Asthmatics may be at risk of nasal polyps, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic conditions, but there is emerging of evidence inflammation associated with asthma may affect other organ systems,” said Maselli, who was not involved in the study.
“For example, chronic inflammation in asthmatics may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
Although less is known about the effects of asthma on the nervous system, animal models suggest that inflammation associated with asthma may result in neuronal injury and potential effects on memory, said Maselli.
The findings of this study provide evidence of potential detrimental effects on the memory of children with asthma but should be interpreted with caution, Maselli said. “Children with chronic medical conditions may have an inherent disadvantage compared with their peers due to the burden of their disease, medication utilization and side effects, absenteeism from school, physical limitations, and other disease-specific circumstances,” he noted.
“Uncontrolled asthma, in particular, has strong links to low socioeconomic factors that are closely tied to access to adequate medical care, nutrition, educational institutions, and other relevant contributors to normal cognitive development,” Maselli said. Although the authors account for some of these socioeconomic factors by evaluating income and race, other variables may have influenced the results, he added.
Overall, this study’s findings suggested that the diagnosis of asthma in children may be associated with memory deficits and may influence neurodevelopment; however, more research is needed to determine whether the findings are replicated in other cohorts, said Maselli. “In particular, evaluating the effects of the severity of asthma and different asthma endotypes would be crucial to identify children with a higher risk of memory or cognitive deficits and confirm these associations,” he said.
This study was funded by the Memory and Plasticity Program at the University of California, Davis, and by a Learning, Memory, and Plasticity Training Program Fellowship grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Maselli had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cost Barriers Influence Adherence to Asthma Care
TOPLINE:
Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
- They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
- CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
- CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
- Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
- Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
- Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).
IN PRACTICE:
“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.
LIMITATIONS:
The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
- They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
- CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
- CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
- Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
- Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
- Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).
IN PRACTICE:
“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.
LIMITATIONS:
The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
- They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
- CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
- CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
- Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
- Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
- Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).
IN PRACTICE:
“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.
LIMITATIONS:
The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.
DISCLOSURES:
No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
First Human Bird Flu Death Confirmed in US; Overall Risk Remains Low
The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.
The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.
The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.
Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.
In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.
The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.
The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.
Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.
Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.
A Clinician’s Take
“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said.
Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder.
“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.
Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder.
In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said.
There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized.
More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said.
Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.
The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.
The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.
Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.
In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.
The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.
The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.
Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.
Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.
A Clinician’s Take
“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said.
Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder.
“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.
Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder.
In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said.
There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized.
More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said.
Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.
The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.
The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.
Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.
In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.
The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.
The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.
Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.
Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.
A Clinician’s Take
“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said.
Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder.
“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.
Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder.
In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said.
There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized.
More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said.
Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
At Last, a Nasal Epinephrine Spray
This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine.
The Need for Neffy
It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy.
I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away.
Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine.
My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute.
The potential benefits of neffy are clear:
- It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
- It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
- It cannot be injected incorrectly.
- Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
- There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).
Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions
As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery
It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied.
Insurance Coverage
As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both.
In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
Conclusion
Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives.
Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine.
The Need for Neffy
It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy.
I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away.
Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine.
My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute.
The potential benefits of neffy are clear:
- It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
- It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
- It cannot be injected incorrectly.
- Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
- There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).
Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions
As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery
It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied.
Insurance Coverage
As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both.
In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
Conclusion
Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives.
Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This summer, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the first-in-its-class nasal epinephrine (neffy). It’s a very welcome addition to our anaphylaxis treatment armamentarium. In healthy volunteers, neffy achieved similar serum epinephrine levels, rises in blood pressure, and pulse compared with IM epinephrine.
The Need for Neffy
It was just a few days ago that I saw a new patient with fire ant anaphylaxis. The last time he tried to use an injectable epinephrine pen, he made two mistakes. First, he placed the wrong end against his thigh, and when it did not inject, he depressed it with his thumb — in other words, he injected his thumb with epinephrine. Of course, that cannot happen with neffy.
I recall a few years ago, a child experienced anaphylaxis but the parent was hesitant to administer the EAI (epinephrine autoinjector). The parent drove to the emergency room but was delayed by traffic, and by the time they reached the ER, the patient had suffered a respiratory arrest and passed away.
Patients are not the only ones who are hesitant to administer epinephrine. Some clinicians do not treat anaphylaxis appropriately. As an allergist, I see patients after-the-fact for diagnosis and management. Patients often tell me of systemic allergic reactions treated with IV antihistamines/corticosteroids and even sometimes with nebulized beta agonists, but not epinephrine.
My opinion is that it’s not just needle phobia. As I mentioned, in my Medscape commentary “Injectable Epinephrine: An Epidemic of Misuse,” I believe it’s due to a misunderstanding of the guidelines and a sense that epinephrine is a potent medication to be used sparingly. Clinicians and patients must understand that epinephrine is a naturally occurring hormone and administration leads to serum levels seen under other natural circumstances (eg, stress — the fight-or-flight surge). The aforementioned article also includes a patient handout, “Don’t Fear Epinephrine,” which I encourage you to read and distribute.
The potential benefits of neffy are clear:
- It should overcome fear of injection ergo being more likely to be used, and used earlier, by both patient/family member and clinicians.
- It’s easier to carry than many larger devices (though not the AUVI-Q).
- It cannot be injected incorrectly.
- Expiration is 8 months longer than the EAI.
- There are no pharmacist substitutions (as there is no equivalent device).
Potential Problems With Neffy and Some Suggested Solutions
As promising and beneficial as it is, I wonder about a few training issues. In the office, patients can be trained with a (reusable) injectable epinephrine trainer but not with a nasal spray device trainer in the office (an important alternative is a small model of a nose in the office for patient education). A training device should also be included in the neffy prescription, as with the EAI.
Neffy and Patients With Nasal Polyps or Nasal Surgery
It’s more complicated than that neffy cannot be used with patients who have had nasal polyps or nasal surgery. It’s really about how much healthy nasal mucosa is required for absorption. Nasal surgery may be simple or complex. Nasal polyps may be obstructive or resolved with nasal steroid or biologic therapy. Nasal polyps affect 2% of the population, but 35% of pediatric food allergy (FA) patients develop allergic rhinitis (AR), and these AR symptoms present even when not triggered by FA. AR is present at baseline in patients with FA. How does this influence neffy absorption? For FA patients who have anaphylactic reactions with severe nasal reactions, neffy absorption could be further compromised, something that has not been studied.
Insurance Coverage
As we don’t yet know the comparative efficacy of neffy in anaphylactic episodes, it’s likely that patients, especially with more severe food sensitivities, will be prescribed both the nasal and IM devices. The question remains whether insurance will cover both.
In “mild cases,” I suspect that doctors might be more inclined to prescribe neffy.
Conclusion
Delay in epinephrine use is frequent despite the clear indication during anaphylactic episodes, which in turn increases risk for mortality. Neffy will probably save many lives.
Dr. Stadtmauer serves on the advisory board of Medscape. He is in private practice in New York City and is affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How Extreme Rainfall Amplifies Health Risks
Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.
Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
Extreme Rainfall and Health
The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.
The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
Rain and Mortality
Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.
The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.
The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
Points of Concern
According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:
- Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
- Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
- Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.
The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.
The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.
Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
Extreme Rainfall and Health
The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.
The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
Rain and Mortality
Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.
The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.
The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
Points of Concern
According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:
- Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
- Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
- Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.
The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.
The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Climate change is intensifying the variability of precipitation caused by extreme daily and overall rainfall events. Awareness of the effects of these events is crucial for understanding the complex health consequences of climate change. Physicians have often advised their patients to move to a better climate, and when they did, the recommendation was rarely based on precise scientific knowledge. However, the benefits of changing environments were often so evident that they were indisputable.
Today, advanced models, satellite imagery, and biological approaches such as environmental epigenetics are enhancing our understanding of health risks related to climate change.
Extreme Rainfall and Health
The increase in precipitation variability is linked to climate warming, which leads to higher atmospheric humidity and extreme rainfall events. These manifestations can cause rapid weather changes, increasing interactions with harmful aerosols and raising the risk for various cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. However, a full understanding of the association between rain and health has been hindered by conflicting results and methodological issues (limited geographical locations and short observation durations) in studies.
The association between rainfall intensity and health effects is likely nonlinear. Moderate precipitation can mitigate summer heat and help reduce air pollution, an effect that may lower some environmental health risks. Conversely, intense, low-frequency, short-duration rainfall events can have particularly harmful effects on health, as such events can trigger rapid weather changes, increased proliferation of pathogens, and a rise in the risk of various pollutants, potentially exacerbating health conditions.
Rain and Mortality
Using an intensity-duration-frequency model of three rainfall indices (high intensity, low frequency, short duration), a study published in October 2024 combined these with mortality data from 34 countries or regions. Researchers estimated associations between mortality (all cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory) and rainfall events with different return periods (the average time expected before an extreme event of a certain magnitude occurs again) and crucial effect modifiers, including climatic, socioeconomic, and urban environmental conditions.
The analysis included 109,954,744 deaths from all causes; 31,164,161 cardiovascular deaths; and 11,817,278 respiratory deaths. During the study period, from 1980 to 2020, a total of 50,913 rainfall events with a 1-year return period, 8362 events with a 2-year return period, and 3301 events with a 5-year return period were identified.
The most significant finding was a global positive association between all-cause mortality and extreme rainfall events with a 5-year return period. One day of extreme rainfall with a 5-year return period was associated with a cumulative relative risk (RRc) of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.05-1.11) for daily mortality from all causes. Rainfall events with a 2-year return period were associated with increased daily respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.14), while no significant effect was observed for cardiovascular mortality during the same period. Rainfall events with a 5-year return period were associated with an increased risk for both cardiovascular mortality (RRc, 1.05) and respiratory mortality (RRc, 1.29), with the respiratory mortality being significantly higher.
Points of Concern
According to the authors, moderate to high rainfall can exert protective effects through two main mechanisms: Improving air quality (rainfall can reduce the concentration of particulate matter 2.5 cm in diameter or less in the atmosphere) and behavioral changes in people (more time spent in enclosed environments, reducing direct exposure to outdoor air pollution and nonoptimal temperatures). As rainfall intensity increases, the initial protective effects may be overshadowed by a cascade of negative impacts including:
- Critical resource disruptions: Intense rainfall can cause severe disruptions to access to healthcare, infrastructure damage including power outages, and compromised water and food quality.
- Physiological effects: Increased humidity levels facilitate the growth of airborne pathogens, potentially triggering allergic reactions and respiratory issues, particularly in vulnerable individuals. Rapid shifts in atmospheric pressure and temperature fluctuations can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory complications.
- Indirect effects: Extreme rainfall can have profound effects on mental health, inducing stress and anxiety that may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions and indirectly contribute to increased overall mortality from nonexternal causes.
The intensity-response curves for the health effects of heavy rainfall showed a nonlinear trend, transitioning from a protective effect at moderate levels of rainfall to a risk for severe harm when rainfall intensity became extreme. Additionally, the significant effects of extreme events were modified by various types of climate and were more pronounced in areas characterized by low variability in precipitation or sparse vegetation cover.
The study demonstrated that various local factors, such as climatic conditions, climate type, and vegetation cover, can potentially influence cardiovascular and respiratory mortality and all-cause mortality related to precipitation. The findings may help physicians convey to their patients the impact of climate change on their health.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pediatricians Must Prepare for Impact on Allergies and Asthma From Climate Change
ORLANDO — It’s important for pediatricians not only to understand the causes and effects of climate change but also to know how to discuss this issue with families and make risk-based adjustments to their clinical practice based on the individual health and circumstances of each patient. That’s one of the key messages delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) by Elizabeth C. Matsui, MD, MHS, professor of population health and pediatrics and director of the Center for Health and Environment Education and Research at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School.
“Even though climate change has been here and has been affecting health already for a while, it’s just really impossible to ignore right now,” she told attendees in a session focused on climate change impacts on allergies and asthma. “The challenge is connecting the dots between something that is much larger, or feels much larger, than the patient and the family that’s in front of you.”
The reality, however, is that climate change is now impacting patients’ health on an individual level, and pediatricians have a responsibility to understand how that’s happening and to help their families prepare for it.
“From the perspective of someone who went into medicine to practice and take care of the individual patient, I think it has been more difficult to connect those dots, and for the people in this room, it’s our job to connect those dots,” Matsui said. She also acknowledged that many of the solutions are frustratingly limited to the policy level and challenging to implement, “but it doesn’t mean that we can’t make a difference for the patients who are in front of us.”
Charles Moon, MD, a pediatrician and Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow at the Children’s Environmental Health Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, found the talk particularly helpful in providing information about both the broader issue and what it means on a local practice level.
“The biggest takeaway is that more people and more pediatricians are tuning in to this issue and realizing the dangers,” Moon said. “It’s clear that a larger community is forming around this, and I think we are at the cusp where more and more people will be coming in. We are really focusing on taking all the data and trying to figure out solutions. I think the solutions orientation is the most important part.”
Understanding the Big Picture
Matsui opened with a general discussion of the human causes of climate change and the effects on a global scale presently and in the future. For example, over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have never been above 300 ppm, but they surpassed that threshold in 1911 and have reached 420 ppm today. The trapping of heat in Earth’s atmosphere caused by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is leading to multiple phenomena that impact health, such as longer growing seasons; increased droughts, heat waves, and wildfire seasons; and higher temperatures. These changes, in turn, affect allergens and asthma.
, Matsui said. Childhood is a critical period for lung and immune development, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 Climate Change and Children’s Health and Well-Being report projects that an increase of 2° C in global warming will result in an additional 34,500 pediatric asthma cases and 228,000 allergic rhinitis cases per year, driven largely by predicted increases in ozone and 2.5-µm particulate matter. The report also forecasts an increase in 6240 asthma emergency department visits and 332 additional respiratory hospitalizations per year.
“We know that these associations that we see between climate change exposures and poor respiratory health outcomes in kids are biologically plausible,” Matsui said. “They’re not just correlation without causation. A lot of the mechanisms for how air pollution, allergies, and other factors directly affect the lungs of the airway epithelium have been worked out.”
An Increase in Allergens and Viral Infections
Pediatricians should prepare for anticipated growth in allergens and viral infections. The longer growing seasons mean that pollen seasons will also lengthen. Meanwhile, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide cause individual plants to produce more pollen.
“As the winters get warmer, mice that might not be able to survive during the winter are surviving, and mice reproduce at a very rapid rate,” she said. “The increase in moisture means that dust mites, which absorb their water — they drink by absorbing humidity that’s in the air — will be present in higher concentrations, and their range will expand.”
Fungal and mold exposures are also increasing, not just outdoors but also indoors, “and there are all sorts of allergic and respiratory health consequences of fungal exposure,” Matsui said. As hurricanes and flooding increase, storm damage can also make indoor environments more conducive to fungal and mold growth.
Extreme weather from climate change also affects infrastructure. “When there’s healthcare infrastructure disruption and other infrastructure disruption, it adds to the challenge,” she said. “It compounds all the other threat to health from climate change, so this overall problem of climate change and health is multidimensional and very complicated.”
Then there’s the impact of climate change on respiratory viruses, which are a major driver of asthma exacerbations, Matsui said. The greater variability in daytime temperatures affects environmental reservoirs, transmission patterns, geographical ranges, and seasonality of various respiratory pathogens. The prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus infections, for example, increases during humid periods.
“This is coupled with the fact that the projected increases in air pollution increase susceptibility to respiratory virus infections,” Matsui said. “In fact, climate change and air pollution are inextricably linked.”
Climate Change and Air Pollution
Climate disruption creates extreme weather patterns that then lead to worsening air quality due to high temperatures; heavier precipitation; and more forest fires, droughts, dust storms, thunderstorms, hurricanes, stagnation events, and other extreme weather. Matsui shared a map showing the substantial increase in days with stagnant air since 1973. During stagnation events, air pollution builds up in the atmosphere because of a stable air mass that remains over a region for several days, with low-level winds and no precipitation.
The pollutants can then contribute to rising temperatures. Black carbon particulate matter released from the burning of forests and other biomass absorbs more solar radiation, further contributing to temperature increases. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that the US made big strides in reducing air pollution from 2009 through 2016, but it began to reverse in 2016 as severe weather events picked up.
Pediatricians need to be cognizant of the synergistic effect of these different impacts as well. “We oftentimes talk about these problems in a silo, so we may talk about air pollution and health effects, or allergens and health effects, or heat and health effects, but all of these interact with each other and further compound the health effects,” compared to just one of them in isolation, Matsui said.
For example, air pollution increases sensitivity to allergen exposure and increases reaction severity, which disrupts the immune tolerance to allergens. “Heat and air pollution also interact, and the combination of the two is more deadly than either one alone,” she said.
Air pollution from wildfire smoke is also more toxic to the lungs than air pollution from other sources, so if there’s wildfire-based air pollution, the impact on respiratory hospitalizations is significantly greater. Even in places that would not otherwise be at risk for wildfires, the threat remains of air pollution from more distant fires, as New York City experienced from Canadian wildfires last year.
“This is a problem that is not just isolated to the parts of the world where the wildfires are located,” Matsui said.
Moon, who practices in New York City, said he really appreciated Matsui’s perspectives and nuanced advice as a subspecialist “because it’s obvious that the way we deliver healthcare is going to have to change based on climate change.” He hopes to see more subspecialists from other pediatric areas getting involved in looking at climate impacts and providing nuanced advice about changing clinical care similar to the examples Matsui provided.
Air pollution can also be deadly, as a landmark case in the United Kingdom revealed a few years ago when the court ruled that a child’s death from an asthma attack was directly due to air pollution. In addition to causing worse asthma symptoms and exacerbations, air pollution also adds to the risk of developing asthma and impedes lung growth, all of which disproportionately affects disadvantaged and minoritized communities, she said.
Greater Impact on Disadvantaged Populations
Matsui called attention to the equity implications of climate change impacts on health.
“If you have a community that does not have the infrastructure and access to resources, and that same community has a prevalence of asthma that is double that of their more advantaged and white counterparts, then the impacts of climate change are going to be amplified even more,” she said.
For example, a 2019 study found that the biggest predictor of the location of ragweed plants has to do with vacant lots and demolition of housing. Ragweed plants being more common in neighborhoods with vacant lots will disproportionately affect disadvantaged neighborhoods, she said. Another study found in Baltimore that mouse allergens — specifically urine — were a bigger cause of asthma in low-income children than were cockroach allergens.
“It’s important to consider context,” including age, gender and social and behavioral context, she said. “We as pediatricians know that children are particularly vulnerable, and what happens to them has an effect across the lifespan.”
Furthermore, pediatricians are aware that disadvantaged and minoritized communities lack infrastructure; often live in areas with greater air pollution; often have heat islands in their communities without protection, such as tree canopy; and may be at greater flooding risk. “Poverty is also associated with increased vulnerability” because of poorer housing and infrastructure, less education, less access to care, more preexisting health conditions and greater discrimination, she said.
Three Cornerstone Interventions
Interventions fall into three main buckets, Matsui said: mitigation, adaption, and resilience.
“Mitigation means reducing greenhouse gas and air pollution production and trying to enhance sinks for greenhouse gases,” she said. Mitigation strategies primarily occur at the policy level, with improved regulation, treaties, and market-based approaches, such as carbon tax and cap and trade.
Adaptation includes actions that lessen the impact on health and environment, such as infrastructure changes and implementation of air conditioning. Examples of climate change adaptation strategies also mostly come from policy but largely at state and local levels, where individual pediatricians have a greater voice and influence. These can include changes in urban planning to address heat islands, flooding risk, and public transportation’s contribution to air pollution and climate change. It can also include changes in housing regulation and policy and investments in healthcare, such as expanded Medicaid and health insurance and investing in disaster planning and readiness.
“Resilience is a more holistic concept,” Matsui said, “which advocates for system-wide, multilevel changes and involves a range of strategies to enhance social, human, natural, physical, and financial capacities.”
What Pediatricians Can Do
Pediatricians have an important role to play when it comes to climate change and health impacts.
“The first step is sort of understanding the complexity of climate change in terms of its potential health effects, but also being prepared to talk with our patients and their families about it,” Matsui said. “The second step is advocacy.” She drew attention to the February policy statement in Pediatrics that discusses precisely the ways in which pediatricians can leverage their expertise and credibility.
“Pediatricians are ideal advocates with whom to partner and uplift youth and community voices working to advance zero-carbon energy policy and climate justice,” she said. “There are many opportunities to advocate for climate solution policies at the local, state, national, and even international level.”
These roles can include educating elected officials and health insurance entities about the risks that climate change poses to allergies, asthma, and child health more broadly, as well as the benefits of local solutions, including improved air quality, tree canopy, and green space. “There are lots of opportunities to engage with the community, including speaking at public hearings, serving as an expert testimony, and writing letters to the editor,” she said.
The impact of these efforts can be further maximized by working with other healthcare professionals. Lori Byron, MD, a pediatrician from Red Lodge, Montana, who heads the AAP Chapter Climate Advocates program, noted during Q&A that every AAP chapter in the country has climate advocates. She added that the AAP is the first medical board to have climate modules in their maintenance of certification specifically designed to incorporate climate change education into well visits.
Adjusting Clinical Care
Meanwhile, in patient care, Matsui acknowledged it can be frustrating to think about what a massive impact climate has and simultaneously challenging to engage families in discussions about it. However, a wide range of resources are available that can be provided to patients.
“For a patient in front of you, being informed and prepared to talk about it is the first step to being able to assess their climate change risk and provide tailored guidance,” she said. Tailored guidance takes into account the child’s specific health situation and the risks they’re most likely to encounter, such as wildfire smoke, air pollution, longer pollen seasons, environmental allergens, or disruption of infrastructure.
“If I am seeing a patient with asthma who is allergic to a particular pollen, I can anticipate that pollen may be present in higher levels of the future, and that the season for that pollen may be longer,” Matsui said. “So if I’m thinking about allergen immunotherapy for that patient, future risk may be something that would push the conversation and the shared decision-making” from possible consideration to more serious consideration, depending on the child’s age.
“Another example is a patient with asthma, thinking about wildfire risk and having them prepared, because we know from data that wildfire air pollution is going to be worse for that child than pollution from other sources, and there are ways for them to be prepared,” Matsui said. For instance, having an HVAC system with a high-grade air filter (at least a MERV 13) will filter the air better if a wildfire causes smoke to descend over an area. Portable, less expensive HEPA filters are also an option if a family cannot upgrade their system, and wearing an N95 or N95-equivalent mask can also reduce the impact of high air pollution levels.
An example of thinking about the impact of potential infrastructure disruption could be ensuring patients have enough of all their medications if they’re close to running out. “It’s important for them to always have think about their medications and get those refills ahead of a storm,” she said.
Additional Resources
Understanding that pediatricians may not have time to discuss all these issues or have broader conversations about climate change during visits, Matsui highlighted the AAP website of resources on climate change. In addition to resources for pediatricians, such as a basic fact sheet about climate change impacts on children’s health and the technical report that informed the policy statement, the site has multiple resources for families:
- Climate Change Impact: Safeguarding Your Family’s Health and Well-being (video), How to Talk With Children About Climate Change, Climate Change & Children’s Health: AAP Policy Explained, Climate Checkup for Children’s Health: Little Changes With Big Impact, How Climate Change Can Make Children Sick: What Parents Need to Know, Climate Change & Wildfires: Why Kids Are Most at Risk, Climate Change, Extreme Weather & Children: What Families Need to Know, Extreme Heat & Air Pollution: Health Effects on Babies & Pregnant People, and
The following resources can also be helpful to pediatricians and/or families:
- Ready.gov, AirNow, Patient Exposure and the Air Quality Index, Protecting Vulnerable Patient Populations from Climate Hazards: A Referral Guide for Health Professionals from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP)
In some states, Medicaid will provide or cover the cost of air conditioning and/or air filters.
The presentation did not involve external funding. Drs. Matsui and Moon had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO — It’s important for pediatricians not only to understand the causes and effects of climate change but also to know how to discuss this issue with families and make risk-based adjustments to their clinical practice based on the individual health and circumstances of each patient. That’s one of the key messages delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) by Elizabeth C. Matsui, MD, MHS, professor of population health and pediatrics and director of the Center for Health and Environment Education and Research at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School.
“Even though climate change has been here and has been affecting health already for a while, it’s just really impossible to ignore right now,” she told attendees in a session focused on climate change impacts on allergies and asthma. “The challenge is connecting the dots between something that is much larger, or feels much larger, than the patient and the family that’s in front of you.”
The reality, however, is that climate change is now impacting patients’ health on an individual level, and pediatricians have a responsibility to understand how that’s happening and to help their families prepare for it.
“From the perspective of someone who went into medicine to practice and take care of the individual patient, I think it has been more difficult to connect those dots, and for the people in this room, it’s our job to connect those dots,” Matsui said. She also acknowledged that many of the solutions are frustratingly limited to the policy level and challenging to implement, “but it doesn’t mean that we can’t make a difference for the patients who are in front of us.”
Charles Moon, MD, a pediatrician and Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow at the Children’s Environmental Health Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, found the talk particularly helpful in providing information about both the broader issue and what it means on a local practice level.
“The biggest takeaway is that more people and more pediatricians are tuning in to this issue and realizing the dangers,” Moon said. “It’s clear that a larger community is forming around this, and I think we are at the cusp where more and more people will be coming in. We are really focusing on taking all the data and trying to figure out solutions. I think the solutions orientation is the most important part.”
Understanding the Big Picture
Matsui opened with a general discussion of the human causes of climate change and the effects on a global scale presently and in the future. For example, over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have never been above 300 ppm, but they surpassed that threshold in 1911 and have reached 420 ppm today. The trapping of heat in Earth’s atmosphere caused by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is leading to multiple phenomena that impact health, such as longer growing seasons; increased droughts, heat waves, and wildfire seasons; and higher temperatures. These changes, in turn, affect allergens and asthma.
, Matsui said. Childhood is a critical period for lung and immune development, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 Climate Change and Children’s Health and Well-Being report projects that an increase of 2° C in global warming will result in an additional 34,500 pediatric asthma cases and 228,000 allergic rhinitis cases per year, driven largely by predicted increases in ozone and 2.5-µm particulate matter. The report also forecasts an increase in 6240 asthma emergency department visits and 332 additional respiratory hospitalizations per year.
“We know that these associations that we see between climate change exposures and poor respiratory health outcomes in kids are biologically plausible,” Matsui said. “They’re not just correlation without causation. A lot of the mechanisms for how air pollution, allergies, and other factors directly affect the lungs of the airway epithelium have been worked out.”
An Increase in Allergens and Viral Infections
Pediatricians should prepare for anticipated growth in allergens and viral infections. The longer growing seasons mean that pollen seasons will also lengthen. Meanwhile, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide cause individual plants to produce more pollen.
“As the winters get warmer, mice that might not be able to survive during the winter are surviving, and mice reproduce at a very rapid rate,” she said. “The increase in moisture means that dust mites, which absorb their water — they drink by absorbing humidity that’s in the air — will be present in higher concentrations, and their range will expand.”
Fungal and mold exposures are also increasing, not just outdoors but also indoors, “and there are all sorts of allergic and respiratory health consequences of fungal exposure,” Matsui said. As hurricanes and flooding increase, storm damage can also make indoor environments more conducive to fungal and mold growth.
Extreme weather from climate change also affects infrastructure. “When there’s healthcare infrastructure disruption and other infrastructure disruption, it adds to the challenge,” she said. “It compounds all the other threat to health from climate change, so this overall problem of climate change and health is multidimensional and very complicated.”
Then there’s the impact of climate change on respiratory viruses, which are a major driver of asthma exacerbations, Matsui said. The greater variability in daytime temperatures affects environmental reservoirs, transmission patterns, geographical ranges, and seasonality of various respiratory pathogens. The prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus infections, for example, increases during humid periods.
“This is coupled with the fact that the projected increases in air pollution increase susceptibility to respiratory virus infections,” Matsui said. “In fact, climate change and air pollution are inextricably linked.”
Climate Change and Air Pollution
Climate disruption creates extreme weather patterns that then lead to worsening air quality due to high temperatures; heavier precipitation; and more forest fires, droughts, dust storms, thunderstorms, hurricanes, stagnation events, and other extreme weather. Matsui shared a map showing the substantial increase in days with stagnant air since 1973. During stagnation events, air pollution builds up in the atmosphere because of a stable air mass that remains over a region for several days, with low-level winds and no precipitation.
The pollutants can then contribute to rising temperatures. Black carbon particulate matter released from the burning of forests and other biomass absorbs more solar radiation, further contributing to temperature increases. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that the US made big strides in reducing air pollution from 2009 through 2016, but it began to reverse in 2016 as severe weather events picked up.
Pediatricians need to be cognizant of the synergistic effect of these different impacts as well. “We oftentimes talk about these problems in a silo, so we may talk about air pollution and health effects, or allergens and health effects, or heat and health effects, but all of these interact with each other and further compound the health effects,” compared to just one of them in isolation, Matsui said.
For example, air pollution increases sensitivity to allergen exposure and increases reaction severity, which disrupts the immune tolerance to allergens. “Heat and air pollution also interact, and the combination of the two is more deadly than either one alone,” she said.
Air pollution from wildfire smoke is also more toxic to the lungs than air pollution from other sources, so if there’s wildfire-based air pollution, the impact on respiratory hospitalizations is significantly greater. Even in places that would not otherwise be at risk for wildfires, the threat remains of air pollution from more distant fires, as New York City experienced from Canadian wildfires last year.
“This is a problem that is not just isolated to the parts of the world where the wildfires are located,” Matsui said.
Moon, who practices in New York City, said he really appreciated Matsui’s perspectives and nuanced advice as a subspecialist “because it’s obvious that the way we deliver healthcare is going to have to change based on climate change.” He hopes to see more subspecialists from other pediatric areas getting involved in looking at climate impacts and providing nuanced advice about changing clinical care similar to the examples Matsui provided.
Air pollution can also be deadly, as a landmark case in the United Kingdom revealed a few years ago when the court ruled that a child’s death from an asthma attack was directly due to air pollution. In addition to causing worse asthma symptoms and exacerbations, air pollution also adds to the risk of developing asthma and impedes lung growth, all of which disproportionately affects disadvantaged and minoritized communities, she said.
Greater Impact on Disadvantaged Populations
Matsui called attention to the equity implications of climate change impacts on health.
“If you have a community that does not have the infrastructure and access to resources, and that same community has a prevalence of asthma that is double that of their more advantaged and white counterparts, then the impacts of climate change are going to be amplified even more,” she said.
For example, a 2019 study found that the biggest predictor of the location of ragweed plants has to do with vacant lots and demolition of housing. Ragweed plants being more common in neighborhoods with vacant lots will disproportionately affect disadvantaged neighborhoods, she said. Another study found in Baltimore that mouse allergens — specifically urine — were a bigger cause of asthma in low-income children than were cockroach allergens.
“It’s important to consider context,” including age, gender and social and behavioral context, she said. “We as pediatricians know that children are particularly vulnerable, and what happens to them has an effect across the lifespan.”
Furthermore, pediatricians are aware that disadvantaged and minoritized communities lack infrastructure; often live in areas with greater air pollution; often have heat islands in their communities without protection, such as tree canopy; and may be at greater flooding risk. “Poverty is also associated with increased vulnerability” because of poorer housing and infrastructure, less education, less access to care, more preexisting health conditions and greater discrimination, she said.
Three Cornerstone Interventions
Interventions fall into three main buckets, Matsui said: mitigation, adaption, and resilience.
“Mitigation means reducing greenhouse gas and air pollution production and trying to enhance sinks for greenhouse gases,” she said. Mitigation strategies primarily occur at the policy level, with improved regulation, treaties, and market-based approaches, such as carbon tax and cap and trade.
Adaptation includes actions that lessen the impact on health and environment, such as infrastructure changes and implementation of air conditioning. Examples of climate change adaptation strategies also mostly come from policy but largely at state and local levels, where individual pediatricians have a greater voice and influence. These can include changes in urban planning to address heat islands, flooding risk, and public transportation’s contribution to air pollution and climate change. It can also include changes in housing regulation and policy and investments in healthcare, such as expanded Medicaid and health insurance and investing in disaster planning and readiness.
“Resilience is a more holistic concept,” Matsui said, “which advocates for system-wide, multilevel changes and involves a range of strategies to enhance social, human, natural, physical, and financial capacities.”
What Pediatricians Can Do
Pediatricians have an important role to play when it comes to climate change and health impacts.
“The first step is sort of understanding the complexity of climate change in terms of its potential health effects, but also being prepared to talk with our patients and their families about it,” Matsui said. “The second step is advocacy.” She drew attention to the February policy statement in Pediatrics that discusses precisely the ways in which pediatricians can leverage their expertise and credibility.
“Pediatricians are ideal advocates with whom to partner and uplift youth and community voices working to advance zero-carbon energy policy and climate justice,” she said. “There are many opportunities to advocate for climate solution policies at the local, state, national, and even international level.”
These roles can include educating elected officials and health insurance entities about the risks that climate change poses to allergies, asthma, and child health more broadly, as well as the benefits of local solutions, including improved air quality, tree canopy, and green space. “There are lots of opportunities to engage with the community, including speaking at public hearings, serving as an expert testimony, and writing letters to the editor,” she said.
The impact of these efforts can be further maximized by working with other healthcare professionals. Lori Byron, MD, a pediatrician from Red Lodge, Montana, who heads the AAP Chapter Climate Advocates program, noted during Q&A that every AAP chapter in the country has climate advocates. She added that the AAP is the first medical board to have climate modules in their maintenance of certification specifically designed to incorporate climate change education into well visits.
Adjusting Clinical Care
Meanwhile, in patient care, Matsui acknowledged it can be frustrating to think about what a massive impact climate has and simultaneously challenging to engage families in discussions about it. However, a wide range of resources are available that can be provided to patients.
“For a patient in front of you, being informed and prepared to talk about it is the first step to being able to assess their climate change risk and provide tailored guidance,” she said. Tailored guidance takes into account the child’s specific health situation and the risks they’re most likely to encounter, such as wildfire smoke, air pollution, longer pollen seasons, environmental allergens, or disruption of infrastructure.
“If I am seeing a patient with asthma who is allergic to a particular pollen, I can anticipate that pollen may be present in higher levels of the future, and that the season for that pollen may be longer,” Matsui said. “So if I’m thinking about allergen immunotherapy for that patient, future risk may be something that would push the conversation and the shared decision-making” from possible consideration to more serious consideration, depending on the child’s age.
“Another example is a patient with asthma, thinking about wildfire risk and having them prepared, because we know from data that wildfire air pollution is going to be worse for that child than pollution from other sources, and there are ways for them to be prepared,” Matsui said. For instance, having an HVAC system with a high-grade air filter (at least a MERV 13) will filter the air better if a wildfire causes smoke to descend over an area. Portable, less expensive HEPA filters are also an option if a family cannot upgrade their system, and wearing an N95 or N95-equivalent mask can also reduce the impact of high air pollution levels.
An example of thinking about the impact of potential infrastructure disruption could be ensuring patients have enough of all their medications if they’re close to running out. “It’s important for them to always have think about their medications and get those refills ahead of a storm,” she said.
Additional Resources
Understanding that pediatricians may not have time to discuss all these issues or have broader conversations about climate change during visits, Matsui highlighted the AAP website of resources on climate change. In addition to resources for pediatricians, such as a basic fact sheet about climate change impacts on children’s health and the technical report that informed the policy statement, the site has multiple resources for families:
- Climate Change Impact: Safeguarding Your Family’s Health and Well-being (video), How to Talk With Children About Climate Change, Climate Change & Children’s Health: AAP Policy Explained, Climate Checkup for Children’s Health: Little Changes With Big Impact, How Climate Change Can Make Children Sick: What Parents Need to Know, Climate Change & Wildfires: Why Kids Are Most at Risk, Climate Change, Extreme Weather & Children: What Families Need to Know, Extreme Heat & Air Pollution: Health Effects on Babies & Pregnant People, and
The following resources can also be helpful to pediatricians and/or families:
- Ready.gov, AirNow, Patient Exposure and the Air Quality Index, Protecting Vulnerable Patient Populations from Climate Hazards: A Referral Guide for Health Professionals from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP)
In some states, Medicaid will provide or cover the cost of air conditioning and/or air filters.
The presentation did not involve external funding. Drs. Matsui and Moon had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO — It’s important for pediatricians not only to understand the causes and effects of climate change but also to know how to discuss this issue with families and make risk-based adjustments to their clinical practice based on the individual health and circumstances of each patient. That’s one of the key messages delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) by Elizabeth C. Matsui, MD, MHS, professor of population health and pediatrics and director of the Center for Health and Environment Education and Research at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School.
“Even though climate change has been here and has been affecting health already for a while, it’s just really impossible to ignore right now,” she told attendees in a session focused on climate change impacts on allergies and asthma. “The challenge is connecting the dots between something that is much larger, or feels much larger, than the patient and the family that’s in front of you.”
The reality, however, is that climate change is now impacting patients’ health on an individual level, and pediatricians have a responsibility to understand how that’s happening and to help their families prepare for it.
“From the perspective of someone who went into medicine to practice and take care of the individual patient, I think it has been more difficult to connect those dots, and for the people in this room, it’s our job to connect those dots,” Matsui said. She also acknowledged that many of the solutions are frustratingly limited to the policy level and challenging to implement, “but it doesn’t mean that we can’t make a difference for the patients who are in front of us.”
Charles Moon, MD, a pediatrician and Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow at the Children’s Environmental Health Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, found the talk particularly helpful in providing information about both the broader issue and what it means on a local practice level.
“The biggest takeaway is that more people and more pediatricians are tuning in to this issue and realizing the dangers,” Moon said. “It’s clear that a larger community is forming around this, and I think we are at the cusp where more and more people will be coming in. We are really focusing on taking all the data and trying to figure out solutions. I think the solutions orientation is the most important part.”
Understanding the Big Picture
Matsui opened with a general discussion of the human causes of climate change and the effects on a global scale presently and in the future. For example, over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have never been above 300 ppm, but they surpassed that threshold in 1911 and have reached 420 ppm today. The trapping of heat in Earth’s atmosphere caused by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is leading to multiple phenomena that impact health, such as longer growing seasons; increased droughts, heat waves, and wildfire seasons; and higher temperatures. These changes, in turn, affect allergens and asthma.
, Matsui said. Childhood is a critical period for lung and immune development, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 Climate Change and Children’s Health and Well-Being report projects that an increase of 2° C in global warming will result in an additional 34,500 pediatric asthma cases and 228,000 allergic rhinitis cases per year, driven largely by predicted increases in ozone and 2.5-µm particulate matter. The report also forecasts an increase in 6240 asthma emergency department visits and 332 additional respiratory hospitalizations per year.
“We know that these associations that we see between climate change exposures and poor respiratory health outcomes in kids are biologically plausible,” Matsui said. “They’re not just correlation without causation. A lot of the mechanisms for how air pollution, allergies, and other factors directly affect the lungs of the airway epithelium have been worked out.”
An Increase in Allergens and Viral Infections
Pediatricians should prepare for anticipated growth in allergens and viral infections. The longer growing seasons mean that pollen seasons will also lengthen. Meanwhile, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide cause individual plants to produce more pollen.
“As the winters get warmer, mice that might not be able to survive during the winter are surviving, and mice reproduce at a very rapid rate,” she said. “The increase in moisture means that dust mites, which absorb their water — they drink by absorbing humidity that’s in the air — will be present in higher concentrations, and their range will expand.”
Fungal and mold exposures are also increasing, not just outdoors but also indoors, “and there are all sorts of allergic and respiratory health consequences of fungal exposure,” Matsui said. As hurricanes and flooding increase, storm damage can also make indoor environments more conducive to fungal and mold growth.
Extreme weather from climate change also affects infrastructure. “When there’s healthcare infrastructure disruption and other infrastructure disruption, it adds to the challenge,” she said. “It compounds all the other threat to health from climate change, so this overall problem of climate change and health is multidimensional and very complicated.”
Then there’s the impact of climate change on respiratory viruses, which are a major driver of asthma exacerbations, Matsui said. The greater variability in daytime temperatures affects environmental reservoirs, transmission patterns, geographical ranges, and seasonality of various respiratory pathogens. The prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus infections, for example, increases during humid periods.
“This is coupled with the fact that the projected increases in air pollution increase susceptibility to respiratory virus infections,” Matsui said. “In fact, climate change and air pollution are inextricably linked.”
Climate Change and Air Pollution
Climate disruption creates extreme weather patterns that then lead to worsening air quality due to high temperatures; heavier precipitation; and more forest fires, droughts, dust storms, thunderstorms, hurricanes, stagnation events, and other extreme weather. Matsui shared a map showing the substantial increase in days with stagnant air since 1973. During stagnation events, air pollution builds up in the atmosphere because of a stable air mass that remains over a region for several days, with low-level winds and no precipitation.
The pollutants can then contribute to rising temperatures. Black carbon particulate matter released from the burning of forests and other biomass absorbs more solar radiation, further contributing to temperature increases. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that the US made big strides in reducing air pollution from 2009 through 2016, but it began to reverse in 2016 as severe weather events picked up.
Pediatricians need to be cognizant of the synergistic effect of these different impacts as well. “We oftentimes talk about these problems in a silo, so we may talk about air pollution and health effects, or allergens and health effects, or heat and health effects, but all of these interact with each other and further compound the health effects,” compared to just one of them in isolation, Matsui said.
For example, air pollution increases sensitivity to allergen exposure and increases reaction severity, which disrupts the immune tolerance to allergens. “Heat and air pollution also interact, and the combination of the two is more deadly than either one alone,” she said.
Air pollution from wildfire smoke is also more toxic to the lungs than air pollution from other sources, so if there’s wildfire-based air pollution, the impact on respiratory hospitalizations is significantly greater. Even in places that would not otherwise be at risk for wildfires, the threat remains of air pollution from more distant fires, as New York City experienced from Canadian wildfires last year.
“This is a problem that is not just isolated to the parts of the world where the wildfires are located,” Matsui said.
Moon, who practices in New York City, said he really appreciated Matsui’s perspectives and nuanced advice as a subspecialist “because it’s obvious that the way we deliver healthcare is going to have to change based on climate change.” He hopes to see more subspecialists from other pediatric areas getting involved in looking at climate impacts and providing nuanced advice about changing clinical care similar to the examples Matsui provided.
Air pollution can also be deadly, as a landmark case in the United Kingdom revealed a few years ago when the court ruled that a child’s death from an asthma attack was directly due to air pollution. In addition to causing worse asthma symptoms and exacerbations, air pollution also adds to the risk of developing asthma and impedes lung growth, all of which disproportionately affects disadvantaged and minoritized communities, she said.
Greater Impact on Disadvantaged Populations
Matsui called attention to the equity implications of climate change impacts on health.
“If you have a community that does not have the infrastructure and access to resources, and that same community has a prevalence of asthma that is double that of their more advantaged and white counterparts, then the impacts of climate change are going to be amplified even more,” she said.
For example, a 2019 study found that the biggest predictor of the location of ragweed plants has to do with vacant lots and demolition of housing. Ragweed plants being more common in neighborhoods with vacant lots will disproportionately affect disadvantaged neighborhoods, she said. Another study found in Baltimore that mouse allergens — specifically urine — were a bigger cause of asthma in low-income children than were cockroach allergens.
“It’s important to consider context,” including age, gender and social and behavioral context, she said. “We as pediatricians know that children are particularly vulnerable, and what happens to them has an effect across the lifespan.”
Furthermore, pediatricians are aware that disadvantaged and minoritized communities lack infrastructure; often live in areas with greater air pollution; often have heat islands in their communities without protection, such as tree canopy; and may be at greater flooding risk. “Poverty is also associated with increased vulnerability” because of poorer housing and infrastructure, less education, less access to care, more preexisting health conditions and greater discrimination, she said.
Three Cornerstone Interventions
Interventions fall into three main buckets, Matsui said: mitigation, adaption, and resilience.
“Mitigation means reducing greenhouse gas and air pollution production and trying to enhance sinks for greenhouse gases,” she said. Mitigation strategies primarily occur at the policy level, with improved regulation, treaties, and market-based approaches, such as carbon tax and cap and trade.
Adaptation includes actions that lessen the impact on health and environment, such as infrastructure changes and implementation of air conditioning. Examples of climate change adaptation strategies also mostly come from policy but largely at state and local levels, where individual pediatricians have a greater voice and influence. These can include changes in urban planning to address heat islands, flooding risk, and public transportation’s contribution to air pollution and climate change. It can also include changes in housing regulation and policy and investments in healthcare, such as expanded Medicaid and health insurance and investing in disaster planning and readiness.
“Resilience is a more holistic concept,” Matsui said, “which advocates for system-wide, multilevel changes and involves a range of strategies to enhance social, human, natural, physical, and financial capacities.”
What Pediatricians Can Do
Pediatricians have an important role to play when it comes to climate change and health impacts.
“The first step is sort of understanding the complexity of climate change in terms of its potential health effects, but also being prepared to talk with our patients and their families about it,” Matsui said. “The second step is advocacy.” She drew attention to the February policy statement in Pediatrics that discusses precisely the ways in which pediatricians can leverage their expertise and credibility.
“Pediatricians are ideal advocates with whom to partner and uplift youth and community voices working to advance zero-carbon energy policy and climate justice,” she said. “There are many opportunities to advocate for climate solution policies at the local, state, national, and even international level.”
These roles can include educating elected officials and health insurance entities about the risks that climate change poses to allergies, asthma, and child health more broadly, as well as the benefits of local solutions, including improved air quality, tree canopy, and green space. “There are lots of opportunities to engage with the community, including speaking at public hearings, serving as an expert testimony, and writing letters to the editor,” she said.
The impact of these efforts can be further maximized by working with other healthcare professionals. Lori Byron, MD, a pediatrician from Red Lodge, Montana, who heads the AAP Chapter Climate Advocates program, noted during Q&A that every AAP chapter in the country has climate advocates. She added that the AAP is the first medical board to have climate modules in their maintenance of certification specifically designed to incorporate climate change education into well visits.
Adjusting Clinical Care
Meanwhile, in patient care, Matsui acknowledged it can be frustrating to think about what a massive impact climate has and simultaneously challenging to engage families in discussions about it. However, a wide range of resources are available that can be provided to patients.
“For a patient in front of you, being informed and prepared to talk about it is the first step to being able to assess their climate change risk and provide tailored guidance,” she said. Tailored guidance takes into account the child’s specific health situation and the risks they’re most likely to encounter, such as wildfire smoke, air pollution, longer pollen seasons, environmental allergens, or disruption of infrastructure.
“If I am seeing a patient with asthma who is allergic to a particular pollen, I can anticipate that pollen may be present in higher levels of the future, and that the season for that pollen may be longer,” Matsui said. “So if I’m thinking about allergen immunotherapy for that patient, future risk may be something that would push the conversation and the shared decision-making” from possible consideration to more serious consideration, depending on the child’s age.
“Another example is a patient with asthma, thinking about wildfire risk and having them prepared, because we know from data that wildfire air pollution is going to be worse for that child than pollution from other sources, and there are ways for them to be prepared,” Matsui said. For instance, having an HVAC system with a high-grade air filter (at least a MERV 13) will filter the air better if a wildfire causes smoke to descend over an area. Portable, less expensive HEPA filters are also an option if a family cannot upgrade their system, and wearing an N95 or N95-equivalent mask can also reduce the impact of high air pollution levels.
An example of thinking about the impact of potential infrastructure disruption could be ensuring patients have enough of all their medications if they’re close to running out. “It’s important for them to always have think about their medications and get those refills ahead of a storm,” she said.
Additional Resources
Understanding that pediatricians may not have time to discuss all these issues or have broader conversations about climate change during visits, Matsui highlighted the AAP website of resources on climate change. In addition to resources for pediatricians, such as a basic fact sheet about climate change impacts on children’s health and the technical report that informed the policy statement, the site has multiple resources for families:
- Climate Change Impact: Safeguarding Your Family’s Health and Well-being (video), How to Talk With Children About Climate Change, Climate Change & Children’s Health: AAP Policy Explained, Climate Checkup for Children’s Health: Little Changes With Big Impact, How Climate Change Can Make Children Sick: What Parents Need to Know, Climate Change & Wildfires: Why Kids Are Most at Risk, Climate Change, Extreme Weather & Children: What Families Need to Know, Extreme Heat & Air Pollution: Health Effects on Babies & Pregnant People, and
The following resources can also be helpful to pediatricians and/or families:
- Ready.gov, AirNow, Patient Exposure and the Air Quality Index, Protecting Vulnerable Patient Populations from Climate Hazards: A Referral Guide for Health Professionals from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP)
In some states, Medicaid will provide or cover the cost of air conditioning and/or air filters.
The presentation did not involve external funding. Drs. Matsui and Moon had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAP 2024
Is Wildfire Smoke More Toxic Than General Air Pollution?
Wildfire-related air pollution in Europe kills more than non-wildfire air pollution. As climate change exacerbates the frequency and violence of wildfires, researchers are studying the health implications of mitigation methods such as prescribed fires.
Presenting at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), Cathryn Tonne, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona, Spain, said wildfire-related PM2.5 is more toxic than general PM2.5, leading to significantly higher mortality rates.
Prescribed, controlled fires have been employed worldwide to reduce the chance of uncontrolled, catastrophic fires. However, researchers wonder whether the techniques reduce the overall fire-related PM2.5 or add up to it. “Prescribed fire increases ecosystem resilience and can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire,” said Jason Sacks, MPH, an epidemiologist in the Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the congress. “But it also leads to poorer air quality and health impacts, and we still don’t know what this means at a regional scale.”
Wildfire Pollution Kills More Than Other Air Pollution
Researchers at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona used a large dataset of daily mortality data from 32 European countries collected through the EARLY-ADAPT project. They utilized the SILAM model to derive daily average concentrations of wildfire-related PM2.5, non-fire PM2.5, and total PM2.5 levels. They also employed GEOSTAT population grids at a 1-km resolution to calculate the attributable number of deaths across different regions, specifically focusing on data from 2006, 2011, and 2018.
The data analysis indicated that the relative risk per unit of PM2.5 is substantially larger for wildfire-related PM2.5, compared with non-fire PM2.5. “We essentially assume that wildfire smoke PM2.5 has the same toxicity as total PM2.5, but it’s increasingly clear that’s likely not the case,” Dr. Tonne said, presenting the study.
When employing exposure-response functions (ERFs) specific to wildfire smoke, researchers found that the attributable deaths from all causes of wildfire PM2.5 were approximately 10 times larger than those calculated using total PM2.5 exposure estimates. Dr. Tonne explained that this stark difference highlights the critical need for tailored ERFs that accurately reflect the unique health risks posed by wildfire smoke.
“Respiratory mortality usually has the strongest relative risks, and we’re seeing that in this study as well,” Dr. Tonne said. “Wildfire smoke seems to operate through quite immediate mechanisms, likely through inflammation and oxidative stress.”
One significant challenge of the study was the lack of uniform spatial resolution across all countries involved in the analysis. This inconsistency may affect how accurately mortality estimates can be attributed to specific PM2.5 sources. Additionally, the study had limited statistical power for generating age- and sex-specific mortality estimates, which could obscure important demographic differences in vulnerability to wildfire smoke exposure. The analysis was also constrained to data available only up to 2020, thereby excluding critical wildfire events from subsequent years, such as those in 2022 and 2023, which may have further elucidated the health impacts of wildfire smoke in Europe.
Fires Prescription
Prescribed fires or controlled burns are intentional fires set by land managers under carefully managed conditions.
Historically, many forested areas have been subjected to fire suppression practices, which allow combustible materials like dry leaves, twigs, and shrubs to accumulate over time. This buildup leads to a higher likelihood of severe, uncontrollable wildfires. Prescribed fires can reduce these fuel loads and improve the health and resilience of ecosystems.
They release fewer pollutants and emissions than the large-scale, unmanageable wildfires they help prevent because they happen at lower temperatures. But they still introduce pollutants in the air that can negatively affect nearby communities’ health.
People with preexisting respiratory conditions, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are particularly vulnerable to smoke, which can trigger health issues like breathing difficulties, coughing, and eye irritation. The cumulative impact of increased burns raises concerns about long-term air quality, especially in densely populated areas. “We need to understand if we’re actually tipping the scale to having less wildfire smoke or just increasing the total amount of smoke.”
Mitigation strategies include accurately picking the right timing and weather conditions to determine when and where to conduct controlled burns and effective and timely communication to inform local communities about upcoming burns, the potential for smoke exposure, and how to protect themselves.
There is a growing need to improve public messaging around prescribed fires, Mr. Sacks said, because often the message communicated is oversimplified, such as “there will be smoke, but don’t worry. But that’s not the message we want to convey, especially for people with asthma or COPD.”
Instead, he said public health agencies should provide clearer, science-based guidance on the risks for smoke exposure and practical steps people can take to reduce their risk.
What Can Doctors Do?
Chris Carlsten, MD, director of the Centre for Lung Health and professor and head of the Respiratory Medicine Division at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, told this news organization that determining whether an exacerbation of a respiratory condition is caused by fire exposure or other factors, such as viral infections, is complex because both can trigger similar responses and may complement each other. “It’s very difficult for any individual to know whether, when they’re having an exacerbation of asthma or COPD, that’s due to the fire,” he said. Fire smoke also increases infection risks, further complicating diagnosis.
Dr. Carlsten suggested that physicians could recommend preventative use of inhalers for at-risk patients when wildfires occur rather than waiting for symptoms to worsen. “That is a really interesting idea that could be practical.” Still, he advises caution, stressing that patients should consult their providers because not all may react well to increased inhaler use.
He also highlighted a significant shift in the healthcare landscape, noting that traditionally, the focus has been on the cardiovascular impacts of pollution, particularly traffic-related pollution. However, as wildfire smoke becomes a growing issue, the focus is shifting back to respiratory problems, with profound implications for healthcare resources, budgets, and drug approvals based on the burden of respiratory disease. “Fire smoke is becoming more of a problem. This swing back to respiratory has huge implications for healthcare systems and respiratory disease burden.”
Mr. Sacks and Dr. Carlsten reported no relevant financial relationships. The study presented by Dr. Tonne received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101057131.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Wildfire-related air pollution in Europe kills more than non-wildfire air pollution. As climate change exacerbates the frequency and violence of wildfires, researchers are studying the health implications of mitigation methods such as prescribed fires.
Presenting at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), Cathryn Tonne, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona, Spain, said wildfire-related PM2.5 is more toxic than general PM2.5, leading to significantly higher mortality rates.
Prescribed, controlled fires have been employed worldwide to reduce the chance of uncontrolled, catastrophic fires. However, researchers wonder whether the techniques reduce the overall fire-related PM2.5 or add up to it. “Prescribed fire increases ecosystem resilience and can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire,” said Jason Sacks, MPH, an epidemiologist in the Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the congress. “But it also leads to poorer air quality and health impacts, and we still don’t know what this means at a regional scale.”
Wildfire Pollution Kills More Than Other Air Pollution
Researchers at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona used a large dataset of daily mortality data from 32 European countries collected through the EARLY-ADAPT project. They utilized the SILAM model to derive daily average concentrations of wildfire-related PM2.5, non-fire PM2.5, and total PM2.5 levels. They also employed GEOSTAT population grids at a 1-km resolution to calculate the attributable number of deaths across different regions, specifically focusing on data from 2006, 2011, and 2018.
The data analysis indicated that the relative risk per unit of PM2.5 is substantially larger for wildfire-related PM2.5, compared with non-fire PM2.5. “We essentially assume that wildfire smoke PM2.5 has the same toxicity as total PM2.5, but it’s increasingly clear that’s likely not the case,” Dr. Tonne said, presenting the study.
When employing exposure-response functions (ERFs) specific to wildfire smoke, researchers found that the attributable deaths from all causes of wildfire PM2.5 were approximately 10 times larger than those calculated using total PM2.5 exposure estimates. Dr. Tonne explained that this stark difference highlights the critical need for tailored ERFs that accurately reflect the unique health risks posed by wildfire smoke.
“Respiratory mortality usually has the strongest relative risks, and we’re seeing that in this study as well,” Dr. Tonne said. “Wildfire smoke seems to operate through quite immediate mechanisms, likely through inflammation and oxidative stress.”
One significant challenge of the study was the lack of uniform spatial resolution across all countries involved in the analysis. This inconsistency may affect how accurately mortality estimates can be attributed to specific PM2.5 sources. Additionally, the study had limited statistical power for generating age- and sex-specific mortality estimates, which could obscure important demographic differences in vulnerability to wildfire smoke exposure. The analysis was also constrained to data available only up to 2020, thereby excluding critical wildfire events from subsequent years, such as those in 2022 and 2023, which may have further elucidated the health impacts of wildfire smoke in Europe.
Fires Prescription
Prescribed fires or controlled burns are intentional fires set by land managers under carefully managed conditions.
Historically, many forested areas have been subjected to fire suppression practices, which allow combustible materials like dry leaves, twigs, and shrubs to accumulate over time. This buildup leads to a higher likelihood of severe, uncontrollable wildfires. Prescribed fires can reduce these fuel loads and improve the health and resilience of ecosystems.
They release fewer pollutants and emissions than the large-scale, unmanageable wildfires they help prevent because they happen at lower temperatures. But they still introduce pollutants in the air that can negatively affect nearby communities’ health.
People with preexisting respiratory conditions, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are particularly vulnerable to smoke, which can trigger health issues like breathing difficulties, coughing, and eye irritation. The cumulative impact of increased burns raises concerns about long-term air quality, especially in densely populated areas. “We need to understand if we’re actually tipping the scale to having less wildfire smoke or just increasing the total amount of smoke.”
Mitigation strategies include accurately picking the right timing and weather conditions to determine when and where to conduct controlled burns and effective and timely communication to inform local communities about upcoming burns, the potential for smoke exposure, and how to protect themselves.
There is a growing need to improve public messaging around prescribed fires, Mr. Sacks said, because often the message communicated is oversimplified, such as “there will be smoke, but don’t worry. But that’s not the message we want to convey, especially for people with asthma or COPD.”
Instead, he said public health agencies should provide clearer, science-based guidance on the risks for smoke exposure and practical steps people can take to reduce their risk.
What Can Doctors Do?
Chris Carlsten, MD, director of the Centre for Lung Health and professor and head of the Respiratory Medicine Division at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, told this news organization that determining whether an exacerbation of a respiratory condition is caused by fire exposure or other factors, such as viral infections, is complex because both can trigger similar responses and may complement each other. “It’s very difficult for any individual to know whether, when they’re having an exacerbation of asthma or COPD, that’s due to the fire,” he said. Fire smoke also increases infection risks, further complicating diagnosis.
Dr. Carlsten suggested that physicians could recommend preventative use of inhalers for at-risk patients when wildfires occur rather than waiting for symptoms to worsen. “That is a really interesting idea that could be practical.” Still, he advises caution, stressing that patients should consult their providers because not all may react well to increased inhaler use.
He also highlighted a significant shift in the healthcare landscape, noting that traditionally, the focus has been on the cardiovascular impacts of pollution, particularly traffic-related pollution. However, as wildfire smoke becomes a growing issue, the focus is shifting back to respiratory problems, with profound implications for healthcare resources, budgets, and drug approvals based on the burden of respiratory disease. “Fire smoke is becoming more of a problem. This swing back to respiratory has huge implications for healthcare systems and respiratory disease burden.”
Mr. Sacks and Dr. Carlsten reported no relevant financial relationships. The study presented by Dr. Tonne received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101057131.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Wildfire-related air pollution in Europe kills more than non-wildfire air pollution. As climate change exacerbates the frequency and violence of wildfires, researchers are studying the health implications of mitigation methods such as prescribed fires.
Presenting at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), Cathryn Tonne, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona, Spain, said wildfire-related PM2.5 is more toxic than general PM2.5, leading to significantly higher mortality rates.
Prescribed, controlled fires have been employed worldwide to reduce the chance of uncontrolled, catastrophic fires. However, researchers wonder whether the techniques reduce the overall fire-related PM2.5 or add up to it. “Prescribed fire increases ecosystem resilience and can reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire,” said Jason Sacks, MPH, an epidemiologist in the Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment in the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the congress. “But it also leads to poorer air quality and health impacts, and we still don’t know what this means at a regional scale.”
Wildfire Pollution Kills More Than Other Air Pollution
Researchers at the Instituto de Salud Global de Barcelona used a large dataset of daily mortality data from 32 European countries collected through the EARLY-ADAPT project. They utilized the SILAM model to derive daily average concentrations of wildfire-related PM2.5, non-fire PM2.5, and total PM2.5 levels. They also employed GEOSTAT population grids at a 1-km resolution to calculate the attributable number of deaths across different regions, specifically focusing on data from 2006, 2011, and 2018.
The data analysis indicated that the relative risk per unit of PM2.5 is substantially larger for wildfire-related PM2.5, compared with non-fire PM2.5. “We essentially assume that wildfire smoke PM2.5 has the same toxicity as total PM2.5, but it’s increasingly clear that’s likely not the case,” Dr. Tonne said, presenting the study.
When employing exposure-response functions (ERFs) specific to wildfire smoke, researchers found that the attributable deaths from all causes of wildfire PM2.5 were approximately 10 times larger than those calculated using total PM2.5 exposure estimates. Dr. Tonne explained that this stark difference highlights the critical need for tailored ERFs that accurately reflect the unique health risks posed by wildfire smoke.
“Respiratory mortality usually has the strongest relative risks, and we’re seeing that in this study as well,” Dr. Tonne said. “Wildfire smoke seems to operate through quite immediate mechanisms, likely through inflammation and oxidative stress.”
One significant challenge of the study was the lack of uniform spatial resolution across all countries involved in the analysis. This inconsistency may affect how accurately mortality estimates can be attributed to specific PM2.5 sources. Additionally, the study had limited statistical power for generating age- and sex-specific mortality estimates, which could obscure important demographic differences in vulnerability to wildfire smoke exposure. The analysis was also constrained to data available only up to 2020, thereby excluding critical wildfire events from subsequent years, such as those in 2022 and 2023, which may have further elucidated the health impacts of wildfire smoke in Europe.
Fires Prescription
Prescribed fires or controlled burns are intentional fires set by land managers under carefully managed conditions.
Historically, many forested areas have been subjected to fire suppression practices, which allow combustible materials like dry leaves, twigs, and shrubs to accumulate over time. This buildup leads to a higher likelihood of severe, uncontrollable wildfires. Prescribed fires can reduce these fuel loads and improve the health and resilience of ecosystems.
They release fewer pollutants and emissions than the large-scale, unmanageable wildfires they help prevent because they happen at lower temperatures. But they still introduce pollutants in the air that can negatively affect nearby communities’ health.
People with preexisting respiratory conditions, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are particularly vulnerable to smoke, which can trigger health issues like breathing difficulties, coughing, and eye irritation. The cumulative impact of increased burns raises concerns about long-term air quality, especially in densely populated areas. “We need to understand if we’re actually tipping the scale to having less wildfire smoke or just increasing the total amount of smoke.”
Mitigation strategies include accurately picking the right timing and weather conditions to determine when and where to conduct controlled burns and effective and timely communication to inform local communities about upcoming burns, the potential for smoke exposure, and how to protect themselves.
There is a growing need to improve public messaging around prescribed fires, Mr. Sacks said, because often the message communicated is oversimplified, such as “there will be smoke, but don’t worry. But that’s not the message we want to convey, especially for people with asthma or COPD.”
Instead, he said public health agencies should provide clearer, science-based guidance on the risks for smoke exposure and practical steps people can take to reduce their risk.
What Can Doctors Do?
Chris Carlsten, MD, director of the Centre for Lung Health and professor and head of the Respiratory Medicine Division at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, told this news organization that determining whether an exacerbation of a respiratory condition is caused by fire exposure or other factors, such as viral infections, is complex because both can trigger similar responses and may complement each other. “It’s very difficult for any individual to know whether, when they’re having an exacerbation of asthma or COPD, that’s due to the fire,” he said. Fire smoke also increases infection risks, further complicating diagnosis.
Dr. Carlsten suggested that physicians could recommend preventative use of inhalers for at-risk patients when wildfires occur rather than waiting for symptoms to worsen. “That is a really interesting idea that could be practical.” Still, he advises caution, stressing that patients should consult their providers because not all may react well to increased inhaler use.
He also highlighted a significant shift in the healthcare landscape, noting that traditionally, the focus has been on the cardiovascular impacts of pollution, particularly traffic-related pollution. However, as wildfire smoke becomes a growing issue, the focus is shifting back to respiratory problems, with profound implications for healthcare resources, budgets, and drug approvals based on the burden of respiratory disease. “Fire smoke is becoming more of a problem. This swing back to respiratory has huge implications for healthcare systems and respiratory disease burden.”
Mr. Sacks and Dr. Carlsten reported no relevant financial relationships. The study presented by Dr. Tonne received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101057131.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ERS 2024
Benralizumab Now FDA Approved to Treat EGPA Vasculitis
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved benralizumab (Fasenra) for the treatment of adults with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), formerly known as Churg-Strauss syndrome.
The drug is the second approved biologic for the treatment of EGPA. The first, mepolizumab (Nucala), was approved in 2017.
“This disease has a devastating impact on patients and the quality of their life, and they need more treatment options. The approval of another treatment in EGPA is welcome news to the approximately 15,000 patients living in the US with this difficult-to-treat rare disease,” said Joyce Kullman, executive director of the Vasculitis Foundation, in a press release on September 18. 
Benralizumab, developed by AstraZeneca, is a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-5 alpha receptor expressed on eosinophils. The drug was first approved in 2017 as an add-on treatment for patients 12 years and older with severe eosinophilic asthma, and is now approved for use in children aged 6 years and older.
The new indication was based on positive results from a noninferiority trial comparing benralizumab and mepolizumab. For the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier in 2024, 140 adults with relapsing or refractory EGPA were randomized to a 30-mg subcutaneous injection of benralizumab or three separate 100-mg mepolizumab injections every 4 weeks for 1 year. At weeks 36 and 48, 59% of patients in the benralizumab group and 56% of patients in the mepolizumab group achieved remission (95% CI, –13 to 18; P = .73 for superiority). From week 42 to 52, 41% of patients who received benralizumab completely stopped taking oral glucocorticoids, compared with 26% of those who received mepolizumab.
“Patients often rely on long-term oral corticosteroids, which can cause serious and lasting side effects. Benralizumab is a much-needed treatment option, with data showing that not only is remission an achievable goal for EGPA patients, but benralizumab can also help patients taper off steroid therapy,” Michael Wechsler, MD, director of The Asthma Institute at National Jewish Health in Denver, Colorado, and the international coordinating investigator for the clinical trial, said in the press release.
Benralizumab is administered via subcutaneous injection. In adults with EGPA, the recommended dosage is 30 mg every 4 weeks for the first three doses, then once every 8 weeks.
The most common adverse reactions include headache and pharyngitis, according to the prescribing information.
Benralizumab is also in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and hypereosinophilic syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved benralizumab (Fasenra) for the treatment of adults with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), formerly known as Churg-Strauss syndrome.
The drug is the second approved biologic for the treatment of EGPA. The first, mepolizumab (Nucala), was approved in 2017.
“This disease has a devastating impact on patients and the quality of their life, and they need more treatment options. The approval of another treatment in EGPA is welcome news to the approximately 15,000 patients living in the US with this difficult-to-treat rare disease,” said Joyce Kullman, executive director of the Vasculitis Foundation, in a press release on September 18.
Benralizumab, developed by AstraZeneca, is a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-5 alpha receptor expressed on eosinophils. The drug was first approved in 2017 as an add-on treatment for patients 12 years and older with severe eosinophilic asthma, and is now approved for use in children aged 6 years and older.
The new indication was based on positive results from a noninferiority trial comparing benralizumab and mepolizumab. For the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier in 2024, 140 adults with relapsing or refractory EGPA were randomized to a 30-mg subcutaneous injection of benralizumab or three separate 100-mg mepolizumab injections every 4 weeks for 1 year. At weeks 36 and 48, 59% of patients in the benralizumab group and 56% of patients in the mepolizumab group achieved remission (95% CI, –13 to 18; P = .73 for superiority). From week 42 to 52, 41% of patients who received benralizumab completely stopped taking oral glucocorticoids, compared with 26% of those who received mepolizumab.
“Patients often rely on long-term oral corticosteroids, which can cause serious and lasting side effects. Benralizumab is a much-needed treatment option, with data showing that not only is remission an achievable goal for EGPA patients, but benralizumab can also help patients taper off steroid therapy,” Michael Wechsler, MD, director of The Asthma Institute at National Jewish Health in Denver, Colorado, and the international coordinating investigator for the clinical trial, said in the press release.
Benralizumab is administered via subcutaneous injection. In adults with EGPA, the recommended dosage is 30 mg every 4 weeks for the first three doses, then once every 8 weeks.
The most common adverse reactions include headache and pharyngitis, according to the prescribing information.
Benralizumab is also in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and hypereosinophilic syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved benralizumab (Fasenra) for the treatment of adults with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), formerly known as Churg-Strauss syndrome.
The drug is the second approved biologic for the treatment of EGPA. The first, mepolizumab (Nucala), was approved in 2017.
“This disease has a devastating impact on patients and the quality of their life, and they need more treatment options. The approval of another treatment in EGPA is welcome news to the approximately 15,000 patients living in the US with this difficult-to-treat rare disease,” said Joyce Kullman, executive director of the Vasculitis Foundation, in a press release on September 18.
Benralizumab, developed by AstraZeneca, is a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-5 alpha receptor expressed on eosinophils. The drug was first approved in 2017 as an add-on treatment for patients 12 years and older with severe eosinophilic asthma, and is now approved for use in children aged 6 years and older.
The new indication was based on positive results from a noninferiority trial comparing benralizumab and mepolizumab. For the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier in 2024, 140 adults with relapsing or refractory EGPA were randomized to a 30-mg subcutaneous injection of benralizumab or three separate 100-mg mepolizumab injections every 4 weeks for 1 year. At weeks 36 and 48, 59% of patients in the benralizumab group and 56% of patients in the mepolizumab group achieved remission (95% CI, –13 to 18; P = .73 for superiority). From week 42 to 52, 41% of patients who received benralizumab completely stopped taking oral glucocorticoids, compared with 26% of those who received mepolizumab.
“Patients often rely on long-term oral corticosteroids, which can cause serious and lasting side effects. Benralizumab is a much-needed treatment option, with data showing that not only is remission an achievable goal for EGPA patients, but benralizumab can also help patients taper off steroid therapy,” Michael Wechsler, MD, director of The Asthma Institute at National Jewish Health in Denver, Colorado, and the international coordinating investigator for the clinical trial, said in the press release.
Benralizumab is administered via subcutaneous injection. In adults with EGPA, the recommended dosage is 30 mg every 4 weeks for the first three doses, then once every 8 weeks.
The most common adverse reactions include headache and pharyngitis, according to the prescribing information.
Benralizumab is also in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and hypereosinophilic syndrome.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Monitor Asthma Patients on Biologics for Remission, Potential EGPA Symptoms During Steroid Tapering
VIENNA — , according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.
Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.
Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.
In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma
Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.
To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.
GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.
An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”
He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
Biologics and EGPA
In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.
The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.
The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — , according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.
Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.
Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.
In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma
Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.
To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.
GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.
An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”
He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
Biologics and EGPA
In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.
The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.
The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — , according to pulmonary experts presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.
Biologics have revolutionized the treatment of severe asthma, significantly improving patient outcomes. However, the focus has recently shifted toward achieving more comprehensive disease control. Remission, already a well-established goal in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, is now being explored in patients with asthma receiving biologics.
Peter Howarth, medical director at Global Medical, Specialty Medicine, GSK, in Brentford, England, said that new clinical remission criteria in asthma may be overly rigid and of little use. He said that more attainable limits must be created. Meanwhile, clinicians should collect clinical data more thoroughly.
In parallel, studies have also raised questions about the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
Defining Clinical Remission in Asthma
Last year, a working group, including members from the American Thoracic Society and the American College and Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, proposed new guidelines to define clinical remission in asthma. These guidelines extended beyond the typical outcomes of no severe exacerbations, no maintenance oral corticosteroid use, good asthma control, and stable lung function. The additional recommendations included no missed work or school due to asthma, limited use of rescue medication (no more than once a month), and reduced inhaled corticosteroid use to low or medium doses.
To explore the feasibility of achieving these clinical remission outcomes, GSK partnered with the Mayo Clinic for a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 700 patients with asthma undergoing various biologic therapies. The study revealed that essential data for determining clinical remission, such as asthma control and exacerbation records, were inconsistently documented. While some data were recorded, such as maintenance corticosteroid use in 50%-60% of cases, other key measures, like asthma control, were recorded in less than a quarter of the patients.
GSK researchers analyzed available data and found that around 30% of patients on any biologic therapy met three components of remission. Mepolizumab performed better than other corticosteroids, with over 40% of those receiving the drug meeting these criteria. However, when stricter definitions were applied, such as requiring four or more remission components, fewer patients achieved remission — less than 10% for four components, with no patients meeting the full seven-point criteria proposed by the working group.
An ongoing ERS Task Force is now exploring what clinical remission outcomes are practical to achieve, as the current definitions may be too aspirational, said Mr. Howarth. “It’s a matter of defying what is practical to achieve because if you can’t achieve it, then it won’t be valuable.”
He also pointed out that biologics are often used for the most severe cases of asthma after other treatments have failed. Evidence suggests that introducing biologics earlier in the disease, before chronic damage occurs, may result in better patient outcomes.
Biologics and EGPA
In a retrospective study, clinical details of 27 patients with adult-onset asthma from 28 countries, all on biologic therapy, were analyzed. The study, a multicounty collaboration, was led by ERS Severe Heterogeneous Asthma Research Collaboration, Patient-centred (SHARP), and aimed to understand the role of biologics in the emergence of EGPA.
The most significant finding presented at the ERS 2024 International Congress was that EGPA was not associated with maintenance corticosteroids; instead, it often emerged when corticosteroid doses were reduced or tapered off. “This might suggest that steroid withdrawal may unmask the underlying disease,” said Hitasha Rupani, MD, a consultant respiratory physician at the University Hospital Southampton, in Southampton, England. Importantly, the rate at which steroids were tapered did not influence the onset of EGPA, indicating that the tapering process, rather than its speed, may be the critical factor. However, due to the small sample size, this remains a hypothesis, Dr. Rupani explained.
The study also found that when clinicians had a clinical suspicion of EGPA before starting biologic therapy, the diagnosis was made earlier than in cases without such suspicion. Dr. Rupani concluded that this underscores the importance of clinical vigilance and the need to monitor patients closely for EGPA symptoms, especially during corticosteroid tapering.
The study was funded by GSK. Mr. Howarth is an employee at GSK. Dr. Rupani reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Blood Eosinophil Counts Might Predict Childhood Asthma, Treatment Response
VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments.
Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.
Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness
In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”
Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.
Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.
Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.
“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia
Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.
Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.
Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.
Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”
Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments.
Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.
Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness
In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”
Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.
Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.
Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.
“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia
Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.
Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.
Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.
Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”
Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments.
Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.
Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness
In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”
Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.
Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.
Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.
“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia
Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.
Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.
Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.
Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”
Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.