Asthma

Sometimes we get what we pay for. Other times we pay too much. 

That’s the message of a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, which finds that a generic maintenance inhaler is as effective at managing symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) as a pricier branded alternative. 

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved Wixela Inhub (the combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta² adrenergic agonist fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris) as a generic dry powder inhaler for managing symptoms of COPD. This approval was based on evidence of the generic’s effectiveness against asthma, although COPD also was on the product label. The study authors compared Wixela’s effectiveness in controlling symptoms of COPD with that of the brand name inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline), which uses the same active ingredients.

The result: “The generic looks to be as safe and effective as the brand name. I don’t see a clinical reason why one would ever need to get the brand name over the generic version,” said study author William Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, a health services researcher and pulmonologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
 

Same types of patients, different inhalers, same outcomes

Dr. Feldman and colleagues compared the medical records of 10,000 patients with COPD who began using the branded inhaler to the records of another 10,000 patients with COPD who opted for the generic alternative. Participants in the two groups were evenly matched by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, region, severity of COPD, and presence of other comorbidities, according to the researchers. Participants were all older than age 40, and the average age in both groups was 72 years.

The researchers looked for a difference in a first episode of a moderate exacerbation of COPD, defined as requiring a course of prednisone for 5-14 days. They also looked for cases of severe COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the year after people began using either the generic or brand name inhaler. And they looked for differences across 1 year in rates of hospitalization for pneumonia.

For none of those outcomes, however, did the type of inhaler appear to matter. Compared with the brand-name drug, using the generic was associated with nearly identical rates of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.04. The same was true for the proportion of people who went to the hospital for pneumonia at least once (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.15).

“To get through the FDA as an interchangeable generic, the generic firms have to show that their product can be used in just the same way as the brand-name version,” Dr. Feldman said, which may explain why the generic and brand-name versions of the inhaler performed so similarly.

Dr. Feldman cautioned that the price savings for patients who opt for the generic over the branded product are hard to determine, given the vagaries of different insurance plans and potential rebates when using the branded project. As a general matter, having a single generic competitor will not lower costs much, Dr. Feldman noted, pointing to 2017 research from Harvard that found a profusion of generic competitors is needed to significantly lower health care costs.

“I don’t want to in any way underestimate the importance of getting that first generic onto the market, because it sets the stage for future generics,” Dr. Feldman said.  

“There are very few generic options for patients with COPD,” said Surya Bhatt, MD, director of the Pulmonary Function and Exercise Physiology Lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Even the rescue inhalers that people with COPD use to manage acute episodes of the condition are usually branded at this time, Dr. Bhatt noted, with few generic options.*

“The results are quite compelling,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was not involved in the research. Although the trial was not randomized, he commended the researchers for stratifying participants in the two groups to be as comparable as possible.

Dr. Bhatt noted that the FDA’s 2019 approval – given that the agency requires bioequivalence studies between branded and generic products – was enough to cause him to begin prescribing the generic inhaler. The fact that this approval was based on asthma but not also COPD is not a concern.

“There are so many similarities between asthma, COPD, and some obstructive lung diseases,” Dr. Bhatt noted.

In his experience, the only time someone with COPD continues using the branded inhaler – now that a potentially cheaper generic is available – is when their insurance plan makes their out-of-pocket cost minimal. Otherwise, brand loyalty does not exist.

“Patients are generally okay with being on a generic for inhalers, just because of the high cost,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was primarily supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Feldman reported funding from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the FDA, and consulting relationships with Alosa Health and Aetion. Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 8/16/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Bhatt's comments on the availability of generic options.

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

Sometimes we get what we pay for. Other times we pay too much. 

That’s the message of a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, which finds that a generic maintenance inhaler is as effective at managing symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) as a pricier branded alternative. 

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved Wixela Inhub (the combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta² adrenergic agonist fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris) as a generic dry powder inhaler for managing symptoms of COPD. This approval was based on evidence of the generic’s effectiveness against asthma, although COPD also was on the product label. The study authors compared Wixela’s effectiveness in controlling symptoms of COPD with that of the brand name inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline), which uses the same active ingredients.

The result: “The generic looks to be as safe and effective as the brand name. I don’t see a clinical reason why one would ever need to get the brand name over the generic version,” said study author William Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, a health services researcher and pulmonologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
 

Same types of patients, different inhalers, same outcomes

Dr. Feldman and colleagues compared the medical records of 10,000 patients with COPD who began using the branded inhaler to the records of another 10,000 patients with COPD who opted for the generic alternative. Participants in the two groups were evenly matched by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, region, severity of COPD, and presence of other comorbidities, according to the researchers. Participants were all older than age 40, and the average age in both groups was 72 years.

The researchers looked for a difference in a first episode of a moderate exacerbation of COPD, defined as requiring a course of prednisone for 5-14 days. They also looked for cases of severe COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the year after people began using either the generic or brand name inhaler. And they looked for differences across 1 year in rates of hospitalization for pneumonia.

For none of those outcomes, however, did the type of inhaler appear to matter. Compared with the brand-name drug, using the generic was associated with nearly identical rates of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.04. The same was true for the proportion of people who went to the hospital for pneumonia at least once (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.15).

“To get through the FDA as an interchangeable generic, the generic firms have to show that their product can be used in just the same way as the brand-name version,” Dr. Feldman said, which may explain why the generic and brand-name versions of the inhaler performed so similarly.

Dr. Feldman cautioned that the price savings for patients who opt for the generic over the branded product are hard to determine, given the vagaries of different insurance plans and potential rebates when using the branded project. As a general matter, having a single generic competitor will not lower costs much, Dr. Feldman noted, pointing to 2017 research from Harvard that found a profusion of generic competitors is needed to significantly lower health care costs.

“I don’t want to in any way underestimate the importance of getting that first generic onto the market, because it sets the stage for future generics,” Dr. Feldman said.  

“There are very few generic options for patients with COPD,” said Surya Bhatt, MD, director of the Pulmonary Function and Exercise Physiology Lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Even the rescue inhalers that people with COPD use to manage acute episodes of the condition are usually branded at this time, Dr. Bhatt noted, with few generic options.*

“The results are quite compelling,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was not involved in the research. Although the trial was not randomized, he commended the researchers for stratifying participants in the two groups to be as comparable as possible.

Dr. Bhatt noted that the FDA’s 2019 approval – given that the agency requires bioequivalence studies between branded and generic products – was enough to cause him to begin prescribing the generic inhaler. The fact that this approval was based on asthma but not also COPD is not a concern.

“There are so many similarities between asthma, COPD, and some obstructive lung diseases,” Dr. Bhatt noted.

In his experience, the only time someone with COPD continues using the branded inhaler – now that a potentially cheaper generic is available – is when their insurance plan makes their out-of-pocket cost minimal. Otherwise, brand loyalty does not exist.

“Patients are generally okay with being on a generic for inhalers, just because of the high cost,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was primarily supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Feldman reported funding from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the FDA, and consulting relationships with Alosa Health and Aetion. Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 8/16/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Bhatt's comments on the availability of generic options.

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

Sometimes we get what we pay for. Other times we pay too much. 

That’s the message of a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, which finds that a generic maintenance inhaler is as effective at managing symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) as a pricier branded alternative. 

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration approved Wixela Inhub (the combination corticosteroid/long-acting beta² adrenergic agonist fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris) as a generic dry powder inhaler for managing symptoms of COPD. This approval was based on evidence of the generic’s effectiveness against asthma, although COPD also was on the product label. The study authors compared Wixela’s effectiveness in controlling symptoms of COPD with that of the brand name inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline), which uses the same active ingredients.

The result: “The generic looks to be as safe and effective as the brand name. I don’t see a clinical reason why one would ever need to get the brand name over the generic version,” said study author William Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, a health services researcher and pulmonologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
 

Same types of patients, different inhalers, same outcomes

Dr. Feldman and colleagues compared the medical records of 10,000 patients with COPD who began using the branded inhaler to the records of another 10,000 patients with COPD who opted for the generic alternative. Participants in the two groups were evenly matched by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, region, severity of COPD, and presence of other comorbidities, according to the researchers. Participants were all older than age 40, and the average age in both groups was 72 years.

The researchers looked for a difference in a first episode of a moderate exacerbation of COPD, defined as requiring a course of prednisone for 5-14 days. They also looked for cases of severe COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the year after people began using either the generic or brand name inhaler. And they looked for differences across 1 year in rates of hospitalization for pneumonia.

For none of those outcomes, however, did the type of inhaler appear to matter. Compared with the brand-name drug, using the generic was associated with nearly identical rates of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.04. The same was true for the proportion of people who went to the hospital for pneumonia at least once (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.15).

“To get through the FDA as an interchangeable generic, the generic firms have to show that their product can be used in just the same way as the brand-name version,” Dr. Feldman said, which may explain why the generic and brand-name versions of the inhaler performed so similarly.

Dr. Feldman cautioned that the price savings for patients who opt for the generic over the branded product are hard to determine, given the vagaries of different insurance plans and potential rebates when using the branded project. As a general matter, having a single generic competitor will not lower costs much, Dr. Feldman noted, pointing to 2017 research from Harvard that found a profusion of generic competitors is needed to significantly lower health care costs.

“I don’t want to in any way underestimate the importance of getting that first generic onto the market, because it sets the stage for future generics,” Dr. Feldman said.  

“There are very few generic options for patients with COPD,” said Surya Bhatt, MD, director of the Pulmonary Function and Exercise Physiology Lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Even the rescue inhalers that people with COPD use to manage acute episodes of the condition are usually branded at this time, Dr. Bhatt noted, with few generic options.*

“The results are quite compelling,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was not involved in the research. Although the trial was not randomized, he commended the researchers for stratifying participants in the two groups to be as comparable as possible.

Dr. Bhatt noted that the FDA’s 2019 approval – given that the agency requires bioequivalence studies between branded and generic products – was enough to cause him to begin prescribing the generic inhaler. The fact that this approval was based on asthma but not also COPD is not a concern.

“There are so many similarities between asthma, COPD, and some obstructive lung diseases,” Dr. Bhatt noted.

In his experience, the only time someone with COPD continues using the branded inhaler – now that a potentially cheaper generic is available – is when their insurance plan makes their out-of-pocket cost minimal. Otherwise, brand loyalty does not exist.

“Patients are generally okay with being on a generic for inhalers, just because of the high cost,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The study was primarily supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Feldman reported funding from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the FDA, and consulting relationships with Alosa Health and Aetion. Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

*Correction, 8/16/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized Dr. Bhatt's comments on the availability of generic options.

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

TOPLINE:

Immunological and quantitative mRNA assays support a pathogenesis role for histamine-releasing factor (HRF), its interaction with HRF-reactive immunoglobulin E and rhinovirus (RV) in asthma severity and exacerbation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Clinical data for healthy controls (HCs) were compared with data from patients with asthma for three distinct cohorts recruited from programs located in Pittsburg, Boston, and Virginia.
• Cohorts differed primarily by total number of participants, median age, description of asthma severity, RV status, and longitudinal follow-up.
• Enzyme-linked immunoassay tests quantified for comparisons total IgE, IgGs, and IgG1 levels occurring in human sera samples and for HRF-reactive IgE, IgG1, and IgG2b in sera from mice inoculated with mouse .
• Anti-IgE stimulation experiments characterized bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cell supernatants for tryptase and PGD2 by ELISA and the mRNAs for tryptase and FCER1A
• Effect of inoculated RV infections and/or house dust mite allergen on stimulating HRF secretion from respiratory epithelial cells and in vitro–grown lung BEAS-2B cells was evaluated by Western blots.

TAKEAWAY:

• HRF-reactive IgE and total IgE levels in serum were significantly higher from patients with severe asthma than from HCs and showed a rising trend as severity increased.
• HRF-reactive IgGs and IgG1 levels in serum were lower in people with asthma than in HCs.
• People with asthma with high HRF-reactive IgE, compared with those with low levels, tended to release more tryptase prostaglandin D2 with anti-IgE stimulation of BAL cells.
• RV infection induced HFR secretions from both in vivo– and in vitro–grown respiratory epithelial cells and was associated with higher levels of HRF-IgE at the time of asthma exacerbations, compared with after resolution.

IN PRACTICE:

Inhibiting HRF and HRF-reactive IgE interactions “can be a preventative/therapeutic target” for severe and RV-induced exacerbated asthma conditions.

SOURCE:

The study led by Yu Kawakami, MD, of La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology, California, and colleagues was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

LIMITATIONS:

Small sample sizes, large median age differences between cohorts, and lack of data for other demographic traits and variant asthma phenotypes or endotypes in some cohorts are noted limitations that may affect result extrapolations and conclusions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report there are no conflicts of interest directly related to this study.

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

TOPLINE:

Immunological and quantitative mRNA assays support a pathogenesis role for histamine-releasing factor (HRF), its interaction with HRF-reactive immunoglobulin E and rhinovirus (RV) in asthma severity and exacerbation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Clinical data for healthy controls (HCs) were compared with data from patients with asthma for three distinct cohorts recruited from programs located in Pittsburg, Boston, and Virginia.
• Cohorts differed primarily by total number of participants, median age, description of asthma severity, RV status, and longitudinal follow-up.
• Enzyme-linked immunoassay tests quantified for comparisons total IgE, IgGs, and IgG1 levels occurring in human sera samples and for HRF-reactive IgE, IgG1, and IgG2b in sera from mice inoculated with mouse .
• Anti-IgE stimulation experiments characterized bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cell supernatants for tryptase and PGD2 by ELISA and the mRNAs for tryptase and FCER1A
• Effect of inoculated RV infections and/or house dust mite allergen on stimulating HRF secretion from respiratory epithelial cells and in vitro–grown lung BEAS-2B cells was evaluated by Western blots.

TAKEAWAY:

• HRF-reactive IgE and total IgE levels in serum were significantly higher from patients with severe asthma than from HCs and showed a rising trend as severity increased.
• HRF-reactive IgGs and IgG1 levels in serum were lower in people with asthma than in HCs.
• People with asthma with high HRF-reactive IgE, compared with those with low levels, tended to release more tryptase prostaglandin D2 with anti-IgE stimulation of BAL cells.
• RV infection induced HFR secretions from both in vivo– and in vitro–grown respiratory epithelial cells and was associated with higher levels of HRF-IgE at the time of asthma exacerbations, compared with after resolution.

IN PRACTICE:

Inhibiting HRF and HRF-reactive IgE interactions “can be a preventative/therapeutic target” for severe and RV-induced exacerbated asthma conditions.

SOURCE:

The study led by Yu Kawakami, MD, of La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology, California, and colleagues was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

LIMITATIONS:

Small sample sizes, large median age differences between cohorts, and lack of data for other demographic traits and variant asthma phenotypes or endotypes in some cohorts are noted limitations that may affect result extrapolations and conclusions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report there are no conflicts of interest directly related to this study.

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

TOPLINE:

Immunological and quantitative mRNA assays support a pathogenesis role for histamine-releasing factor (HRF), its interaction with HRF-reactive immunoglobulin E and rhinovirus (RV) in asthma severity and exacerbation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Clinical data for healthy controls (HCs) were compared with data from patients with asthma for three distinct cohorts recruited from programs located in Pittsburg, Boston, and Virginia.
• Cohorts differed primarily by total number of participants, median age, description of asthma severity, RV status, and longitudinal follow-up.
• Enzyme-linked immunoassay tests quantified for comparisons total IgE, IgGs, and IgG1 levels occurring in human sera samples and for HRF-reactive IgE, IgG1, and IgG2b in sera from mice inoculated with mouse .
• Anti-IgE stimulation experiments characterized bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cell supernatants for tryptase and PGD2 by ELISA and the mRNAs for tryptase and FCER1A
• Effect of inoculated RV infections and/or house dust mite allergen on stimulating HRF secretion from respiratory epithelial cells and in vitro–grown lung BEAS-2B cells was evaluated by Western blots.

TAKEAWAY:

• HRF-reactive IgE and total IgE levels in serum were significantly higher from patients with severe asthma than from HCs and showed a rising trend as severity increased.
• HRF-reactive IgGs and IgG1 levels in serum were lower in people with asthma than in HCs.
• People with asthma with high HRF-reactive IgE, compared with those with low levels, tended to release more tryptase prostaglandin D2 with anti-IgE stimulation of BAL cells.
• RV infection induced HFR secretions from both in vivo– and in vitro–grown respiratory epithelial cells and was associated with higher levels of HRF-IgE at the time of asthma exacerbations, compared with after resolution.

IN PRACTICE:

Inhibiting HRF and HRF-reactive IgE interactions “can be a preventative/therapeutic target” for severe and RV-induced exacerbated asthma conditions.

SOURCE:

The study led by Yu Kawakami, MD, of La Jolla Institute for Allergy & Immunology, California, and colleagues was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

LIMITATIONS:

Small sample sizes, large median age differences between cohorts, and lack of data for other demographic traits and variant asthma phenotypes or endotypes in some cohorts are noted limitations that may affect result extrapolations and conclusions.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report there are no conflicts of interest directly related to this study.

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

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

The real-world Zephyr 2 study, which assessed benralizumab for effectiveness in treating severe eosinophilic asthma, was extended with an analysis of a larger population stratified into three cohorts of participants who were aged 12 years or older. Pre- and posttreatment data showed an improvement in asthma control for each group.

Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies designed to block specific inflammatory pathways is a recommended add-on treatment option for adults to manage severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic-dependent (> 150 cells/µl) and corticosteroid-dependent asthma. One such biologic, benralizumab, targets the interleukin-5 receptor alpha chain (IL-5Rα).

For asthma patients who had previously been treated with benralizumab, there were significant reductions in exacerbation rates in the ZEPHYR 1 study. However, information regarding benefit associated with specific profiles was limited, warranting a larger study to address effectiveness when considering various blood eosinophil counts, prior treatments with other biologics, or benralizumab use for up to 24 months, Donna Carstens, MD, of AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Del., and colleagues write.
 

Study details

In the retrospective cohort Zephyr 2 study, which was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers retrieved deidentified patient information from medical, laboratory, and pharmacy U.S. insurance claims records from the PatientSource and DiagnosticSource databases and compared asthma exacerbation rates before and after treatment with benralizumab.

Age, asthma diagnosis, number of exacerbations, and number of benralizumab treatment records within specified periods were used to identify a total of 1,795 participants for inclusion in the study. The index date for establishing before-treatment and after-treatment index time intervals of 12 months each was defined as the day after the initial benralizumab treatment occurring between November 2017 and June 2019.

The cohort was stratified into three nonmutually exclusive groups consisting of 349 patients who had switched primarily from either omalizumab or mepolizumab biologics to benralizumab; 429 patients subdivided by closest to the index date blood eosinophil counts of less than 150, greater than or equal to 150, 150-299, less than 300, and greater than or equal to 300, and 419 patients with post data collection extended beyond 12 months to 18 or 24 months.

Similarities in baseline patient characteristics that were were observed across the three cohorts included a mean age range of 51-53 years, preponderance of women (67%-69%), obesity diagnosis (31.5%-32.9%), and a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1.47-1.52. Allergic rhinitis was the most frequently reported (60%-67%) comorbidity, followed by hypertension and gastroesophageal reflex.
 

Effectiveness

Benralizumab was found to be a significantly effective treatment for managing severe eosinophilic asthma for all three evaluated cohorts, as evidenced by reductions in asthma exacerbations post-index, compared with pre-index. Specifically, the exacerbation rate for all five subgroups of the blood eosinophil cohort significantly decreased from the pre-index 3.10-3.55 person per year (PPY) rate to a 1.11-1.72 PPY post-index rate, equivalent to a 52%-64% decrease in exacerbations (P < .001 for all pre-index vs. post-index comparisons).

Comparable reductions also occurred with the cohort in which the biologic treatment was changed to benralizumab. A greater effect was observed when the switch was made from omalizumab to benralizumab with a pre-post PPY rate reduction of 3.25-1.25 (62%) than when the switch was made from mepolizumab (pre-post PPY rate reduction was 3.81-1.78 [53%], but both resulted in significant post-treatment improvements (P < .001).

Results from the extended follow-up analysis cohort showed consistency for significant exacerbation rate decline going from a pre-index rate of 3.38 PPY down to 1.34 PPY (60% rate reduction vs. pre-index) in the first 12 post-index months, continuing to decline to 1.18 PPY (65% reduction) over the following six months (both significant at P < .001).

Likewise, the results from the extended follow-up 24-month subgroup presented significant down trending exacerbation rates from pre-index 3.38 PPY to 1.38 (comparative 59% reduction) for the first 12 months continuing down to 1.08 PPY (68% reduction) over the 12-24 month post-index period (both P < .001). In the first and second 12 post-index months for the 24-month subgroup, 39% and 49% of the patients, respectively, experienced no exacerbations.

Following treatment with benralizumab, in addition to the observed decline in asthma exacerbation rates, the need for concomitant asthma medications was also significantly reduced for all three cohorts.

This retrospective ZEPHYR 2 study contributes evidence supporting the significant effectiveness of benralizumab in improving disease management for “specific subsets of severe asthma patients that are frequently seen in real-world practice and may be excluded from clinical trials,” according to the authors. The treatment resulted in reduced rates of asthma exacerbations with defined standards for hospitalizations, visits to emergency department or urgent care, or outpatient visits with separate exacerbations occurring at greater than or equal to 14 days, as reported in database records. Reduction in the rate of asthma exacerbations when benralizumab is switched for another biologic increases the disease management options for achieving optimal patient care, the authors add.

The authors have financial relationships with AstraZeneca, the source of funding for the study.

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

The real-world Zephyr 2 study, which assessed benralizumab for effectiveness in treating severe eosinophilic asthma, was extended with an analysis of a larger population stratified into three cohorts of participants who were aged 12 years or older. Pre- and posttreatment data showed an improvement in asthma control for each group.

Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies designed to block specific inflammatory pathways is a recommended add-on treatment option for adults to manage severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic-dependent (> 150 cells/µl) and corticosteroid-dependent asthma. One such biologic, benralizumab, targets the interleukin-5 receptor alpha chain (IL-5Rα).

For asthma patients who had previously been treated with benralizumab, there were significant reductions in exacerbation rates in the ZEPHYR 1 study. However, information regarding benefit associated with specific profiles was limited, warranting a larger study to address effectiveness when considering various blood eosinophil counts, prior treatments with other biologics, or benralizumab use for up to 24 months, Donna Carstens, MD, of AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Del., and colleagues write.
 

Study details

In the retrospective cohort Zephyr 2 study, which was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers retrieved deidentified patient information from medical, laboratory, and pharmacy U.S. insurance claims records from the PatientSource and DiagnosticSource databases and compared asthma exacerbation rates before and after treatment with benralizumab.

Age, asthma diagnosis, number of exacerbations, and number of benralizumab treatment records within specified periods were used to identify a total of 1,795 participants for inclusion in the study. The index date for establishing before-treatment and after-treatment index time intervals of 12 months each was defined as the day after the initial benralizumab treatment occurring between November 2017 and June 2019.

The cohort was stratified into three nonmutually exclusive groups consisting of 349 patients who had switched primarily from either omalizumab or mepolizumab biologics to benralizumab; 429 patients subdivided by closest to the index date blood eosinophil counts of less than 150, greater than or equal to 150, 150-299, less than 300, and greater than or equal to 300, and 419 patients with post data collection extended beyond 12 months to 18 or 24 months.

Similarities in baseline patient characteristics that were were observed across the three cohorts included a mean age range of 51-53 years, preponderance of women (67%-69%), obesity diagnosis (31.5%-32.9%), and a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1.47-1.52. Allergic rhinitis was the most frequently reported (60%-67%) comorbidity, followed by hypertension and gastroesophageal reflex.
 

Effectiveness

Benralizumab was found to be a significantly effective treatment for managing severe eosinophilic asthma for all three evaluated cohorts, as evidenced by reductions in asthma exacerbations post-index, compared with pre-index. Specifically, the exacerbation rate for all five subgroups of the blood eosinophil cohort significantly decreased from the pre-index 3.10-3.55 person per year (PPY) rate to a 1.11-1.72 PPY post-index rate, equivalent to a 52%-64% decrease in exacerbations (P < .001 for all pre-index vs. post-index comparisons).

Comparable reductions also occurred with the cohort in which the biologic treatment was changed to benralizumab. A greater effect was observed when the switch was made from omalizumab to benralizumab with a pre-post PPY rate reduction of 3.25-1.25 (62%) than when the switch was made from mepolizumab (pre-post PPY rate reduction was 3.81-1.78 [53%], but both resulted in significant post-treatment improvements (P < .001).

Results from the extended follow-up analysis cohort showed consistency for significant exacerbation rate decline going from a pre-index rate of 3.38 PPY down to 1.34 PPY (60% rate reduction vs. pre-index) in the first 12 post-index months, continuing to decline to 1.18 PPY (65% reduction) over the following six months (both significant at P < .001).

Likewise, the results from the extended follow-up 24-month subgroup presented significant down trending exacerbation rates from pre-index 3.38 PPY to 1.38 (comparative 59% reduction) for the first 12 months continuing down to 1.08 PPY (68% reduction) over the 12-24 month post-index period (both P < .001). In the first and second 12 post-index months for the 24-month subgroup, 39% and 49% of the patients, respectively, experienced no exacerbations.

Following treatment with benralizumab, in addition to the observed decline in asthma exacerbation rates, the need for concomitant asthma medications was also significantly reduced for all three cohorts.

This retrospective ZEPHYR 2 study contributes evidence supporting the significant effectiveness of benralizumab in improving disease management for “specific subsets of severe asthma patients that are frequently seen in real-world practice and may be excluded from clinical trials,” according to the authors. The treatment resulted in reduced rates of asthma exacerbations with defined standards for hospitalizations, visits to emergency department or urgent care, or outpatient visits with separate exacerbations occurring at greater than or equal to 14 days, as reported in database records. Reduction in the rate of asthma exacerbations when benralizumab is switched for another biologic increases the disease management options for achieving optimal patient care, the authors add.

The authors have financial relationships with AstraZeneca, the source of funding for the study.

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

The real-world Zephyr 2 study, which assessed benralizumab for effectiveness in treating severe eosinophilic asthma, was extended with an analysis of a larger population stratified into three cohorts of participants who were aged 12 years or older. Pre- and posttreatment data showed an improvement in asthma control for each group.

Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies designed to block specific inflammatory pathways is a recommended add-on treatment option for adults to manage severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic-dependent (> 150 cells/µl) and corticosteroid-dependent asthma. One such biologic, benralizumab, targets the interleukin-5 receptor alpha chain (IL-5Rα).

For asthma patients who had previously been treated with benralizumab, there were significant reductions in exacerbation rates in the ZEPHYR 1 study. However, information regarding benefit associated with specific profiles was limited, warranting a larger study to address effectiveness when considering various blood eosinophil counts, prior treatments with other biologics, or benralizumab use for up to 24 months, Donna Carstens, MD, of AstraZeneca, Wilmington, Del., and colleagues write.
 

Study details

In the retrospective cohort Zephyr 2 study, which was published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers retrieved deidentified patient information from medical, laboratory, and pharmacy U.S. insurance claims records from the PatientSource and DiagnosticSource databases and compared asthma exacerbation rates before and after treatment with benralizumab.

Age, asthma diagnosis, number of exacerbations, and number of benralizumab treatment records within specified periods were used to identify a total of 1,795 participants for inclusion in the study. The index date for establishing before-treatment and after-treatment index time intervals of 12 months each was defined as the day after the initial benralizumab treatment occurring between November 2017 and June 2019.

The cohort was stratified into three nonmutually exclusive groups consisting of 349 patients who had switched primarily from either omalizumab or mepolizumab biologics to benralizumab; 429 patients subdivided by closest to the index date blood eosinophil counts of less than 150, greater than or equal to 150, 150-299, less than 300, and greater than or equal to 300, and 419 patients with post data collection extended beyond 12 months to 18 or 24 months.

Similarities in baseline patient characteristics that were were observed across the three cohorts included a mean age range of 51-53 years, preponderance of women (67%-69%), obesity diagnosis (31.5%-32.9%), and a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1.47-1.52. Allergic rhinitis was the most frequently reported (60%-67%) comorbidity, followed by hypertension and gastroesophageal reflex.
 

Effectiveness

Benralizumab was found to be a significantly effective treatment for managing severe eosinophilic asthma for all three evaluated cohorts, as evidenced by reductions in asthma exacerbations post-index, compared with pre-index. Specifically, the exacerbation rate for all five subgroups of the blood eosinophil cohort significantly decreased from the pre-index 3.10-3.55 person per year (PPY) rate to a 1.11-1.72 PPY post-index rate, equivalent to a 52%-64% decrease in exacerbations (P < .001 for all pre-index vs. post-index comparisons).

Comparable reductions also occurred with the cohort in which the biologic treatment was changed to benralizumab. A greater effect was observed when the switch was made from omalizumab to benralizumab with a pre-post PPY rate reduction of 3.25-1.25 (62%) than when the switch was made from mepolizumab (pre-post PPY rate reduction was 3.81-1.78 [53%], but both resulted in significant post-treatment improvements (P < .001).

Results from the extended follow-up analysis cohort showed consistency for significant exacerbation rate decline going from a pre-index rate of 3.38 PPY down to 1.34 PPY (60% rate reduction vs. pre-index) in the first 12 post-index months, continuing to decline to 1.18 PPY (65% reduction) over the following six months (both significant at P < .001).

Likewise, the results from the extended follow-up 24-month subgroup presented significant down trending exacerbation rates from pre-index 3.38 PPY to 1.38 (comparative 59% reduction) for the first 12 months continuing down to 1.08 PPY (68% reduction) over the 12-24 month post-index period (both P < .001). In the first and second 12 post-index months for the 24-month subgroup, 39% and 49% of the patients, respectively, experienced no exacerbations.

Following treatment with benralizumab, in addition to the observed decline in asthma exacerbation rates, the need for concomitant asthma medications was also significantly reduced for all three cohorts.

This retrospective ZEPHYR 2 study contributes evidence supporting the significant effectiveness of benralizumab in improving disease management for “specific subsets of severe asthma patients that are frequently seen in real-world practice and may be excluded from clinical trials,” according to the authors. The treatment resulted in reduced rates of asthma exacerbations with defined standards for hospitalizations, visits to emergency department or urgent care, or outpatient visits with separate exacerbations occurring at greater than or equal to 14 days, as reported in database records. Reduction in the rate of asthma exacerbations when benralizumab is switched for another biologic increases the disease management options for achieving optimal patient care, the authors add.

The authors have financial relationships with AstraZeneca, the source of funding for the study.

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

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.

These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.

SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.

In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.

The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.

A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.

In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.

The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
 

Asthma risk reduced

Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).

The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.

“Overall, these results suggest a more than 20% reduction in the risk of asthma onset observed in patients treated with liquid SLIT and symptomatic drugs, compared to patients treated with symptomatic drugs only,” said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
 

Risk for worsening

Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.

“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.

“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.

These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.

SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.

In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.

The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.

A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.

In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.

The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
 

Asthma risk reduced

Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).

The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.

“Overall, these results suggest a more than 20% reduction in the risk of asthma onset observed in patients treated with liquid SLIT and symptomatic drugs, compared to patients treated with symptomatic drugs only,” said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
 

Risk for worsening

Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.

“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.

“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.

These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.

SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.

In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.

The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.

A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.

In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.

The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
 

Asthma risk reduced

Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).

The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.

“Overall, these results suggest a more than 20% reduction in the risk of asthma onset observed in patients treated with liquid SLIT and symptomatic drugs, compared to patients treated with symptomatic drugs only,” said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
 

Risk for worsening

Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.

“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.

“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent Swedish study found that both abdominal and general obesity were independently associated with respiratory illnesses, including asthma and self-reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Relationships between respiratory conditions with characterized obesity types in adults were assessed using self-report surveys from participants originally enrolled in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) investigating asthma, allergy, and risk factors. The Respiratory Health in Northern Europe (RHINE) III provides a second follow-up substudy of ECRHS focused on two forms of obesity associated with respiratory illnesses.

Obesity is a characteristic risk factor linked to respiratory ailments such as asthma and COPD. High body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) provide quantitative measurements for defining conditions of comprehensive general and abdominal obesity, respectively.

Although both types of obesity have been associated with asthma incidence, studies on their independent impact on this disease have been limited. Previous reports on abdominal obesity associated with asthma have been inconsistent when considering sexes in the analysis. Additionally, COPD and related outcomes differed between abdominal and general obesity, indicating a need to discover whether self-reported WC abdominal obesity and BMI-based general obesity are independently associated with respiratory symptoms, early- and late-onset asthma, COPD, chronic bronchitis, rhinitis, and sex, Marta A. Kisiel, MD, PhD, of the department of environmental and occupational medicine, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues write.

In a prospective study published in the journal Respiratory Medicine, the researchers report on a cross-sectional investigation of responses to a questionnaire similar to one utilized 10 years earlier in the RHINE II study. Questions required simple yes/no responses that covered asthma, respiratory symptoms, allergic rhinitis, chronic bronchitis, and COPD. Additional requested information included age of asthma onset, potential confounding variables of age, smoking, physical activity, and highest education level, weight and height for BMI calculation, and WC measurement with instructions and a provided tape measure.

The population of the RHINE III study conducted from 2010 to 2012 was composed of 12,290 participants (53% response frequency) obtained from a total of seven research centers located in five northern European countries. Obesity categorization classified 1,837 (6.7%) participants as generally obese based on a high BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4,261 (34.7%) as abdominally obese by WC measurements of ≥ 102 cm for men and ≥ 88 cm for women. Of the 4,261 total participants, 1,669 met both general and abdominal obesity criteria. Mean age was in the low 50s range and the obese population consisted of more women than men.

Simple linear regression revealed that BMI and WC were highly correlated, and both were associated with tested respiratory conditions when adjusted for confounding variables. Differences with respect to WC and BMI were independently associated with most of the examined respiratory conditions when WC was adjusted for BMI and vice versa. Neither early-onset asthma nor allergic rhinitis were associated with WC, BMI, or abdominal or general obesity.

A significantly high proportion of individuals with general and abdominal obesity experienced a variety of defined respiratory symptoms, and asthma, chronic bronchitis, or COPD. An independent association of abdominal obesity (with or without general obesity) was found to occur with respiratory symptoms, asthma, late-onset asthma, and chronic bronchitis.

After adjusting for abdominal obesity, general obesity showed an independent and significant association with respiratory symptoms, asthma, adult-onset asthma, and COPD. An analysis stratified by sex indicated a significant association of abdominal and general obesity with asthma in women presented as an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.87) and 1.95 (95% CI, 1.56-2.43), respectively, compared with men, with an OR of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.97-3.17) and 1.28 (95% CI, 0.97-1.68), respectively. The association of abdominal and general obesity with COPD was also stronger in women, compared with men.

The researchers conclude that “both general and abdominal obesity [were], independent of each other, associated with respiratory symptoms in adults.” There is also a distinct difference between women and men for the association of self-reported asthma and COPD with abdominal and general obesity.

The large randomly selected sample size of participants from research centers located in five northern European countries was considered a major strength of this study as it permitted simultaneous adjustment for multiple potential confounders. Several limitations were acknowledged, including absence of data on obstructive respiratory disease severity, WC measurements not being performed by trained staff, and self-reported height and weight measurements.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

To see the harmful effects of climate change firsthand, you need look no farther than the nearest pulmonary clinic.

The causes and effects are unmistakable: pollen storms leading to allergy sufferers flooding into allergists’ offices; rising air pollution levels increasing risk for obstructive airway diseases, cardiopulmonary complications, and non–small cell lung cancer; melting snowpacks and atmospheric rivers inundating neighborhoods and leaving moldy debris and incipient fungal infections in their wake.

“The reason why we think climate change is going to change the type of disease patterns and the severity of illness that we see in patients with respiratory diseases is that it changes a lot of the environment as well as the exposures,” said Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, BMedSci, BMBS, from the section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine in the department of medicine at West Virginia University, Morgantown.

“What we’re going to see is not just new diseases but also exacerbation of chronic diseases, things like asthma [and] COPD. And there’s also concern that patients who are otherwise healthy, because they now have more exposures that are due to climate change, can then develop these diseases,” she said in an interview.

Ms. Balakrishnan is the lead author of a comprehensive, evidence-based review focused on the effects of climate change and air pollution across the spectrum of pulmonary disorders. The review is published online ahead of print in the journal Chest.

“As pulmonologists, understanding and improving awareness of the adverse effects of climate change and air pollution are crucial steps. To inform health care providers of evidence-based methods and improve patient counselling, further research regarding measures that limit exposure is needed. Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality and minimize exposure is a key preventative measure for decreasing morbidity and mortality while improving quality of  life,” Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues write.

Similarly, in a statement on the effects of climate change on respiratory health, the American Public Health Association succinctly summarized the problem: “Warmer temperatures lead to an increase in pollutants and allergens. Poor air quality leads to reduced lung function, increased risk of asthma complications, heart attacks, heart failure, and death. Air pollution and allergens are the main exposures affecting lung and heart health in this changing climate.”
 

Early spring

Stanley Fineman, MD, MBA, a past president of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology and an allergist in private practice in Atlanta, has seen firsthand how global warming and an earlier start to spring allergy season is affecting his patients.

“The season, at least in our area metro Atlanta, started earlier and has been lasting longer. The pollen counts are very high,” he told this news organization.

“In February we started seeing pollen counts over 1,000 [grams per cubic meter], which is unheard of, and in March about half the days we counted levels that were over 1,000, which is also unheard of. In April it was over 1,000 almost half the days.”

Dr. Fineman and colleagues both in Atlanta and across the country have reported sharp increases in the proportion of new adult patients and in existing patients who have experienced exacerbation of previously mild disease.

“Probably what’s happened is that they may have had some allergic sensitivity that resulted in milder manifestations, but this year they’re getting major manifestations,” Dr. Fineman said.

In a 2014 article in the journal European Respiratory Review, Gennaro D’Amato, MD, from High Speciality Hospital Antonio Cardarelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues outlined the main effects of climate on pollen levels: “1) an increase in plant growth and faster plant growth; 2) an increase in the amount of pollen produced by each plant; 3) an increase in the amount of allergenic proteins contained in pollen; 4) an increase in the start time of plant growth and, therefore, the start of pollen production; 5) an earlier and longer pollen season; 6) change in the geospatial distribution of pollen, that is plant ranges and long-distance atmospheric transport moving polewards,” they write.
 

Bad air

In addition to pollen, the ambient air in many places is increasingly becoming saturated with bioallergenic proteins such as bacteria, viruses, animal dander, insects, molds, and plant species, Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues noted, adding that “atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have also been found to increase pollen productivity. These changes result in greater over-the-counter medication use, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses.”

The rash of violent storms that has washed over much of the United States in recent months is also likely to increase the incidence of so-called “thunderstorm asthma,” caused when large quantities of respirable particulate matter are released before or during a thunderstorm.

Air pollution from the burning of carbon-based fuels and from wildfires sparked by hotter and drier conditions increase airborne particulate matter that can seriously exacerbate asthma, COPD, and other obstructive airway conditions.

In addition, as previously reported by Medscape, exposure to particulate matter has been implicated as a possible cause of non–small cell lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.
 

Critical care challenges

Among the myriad other effects of climate change postulated in evidence enumerated by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues are chest infections and pleural diseases, such as aspergillosis infections that occur after catastrophic flooding; increased incidence of Mycobacterium avium complex infections and hypersensitivity pneumonitis; increased demands on critical care specialists from natural disasters; pollution-induced cardiac arrest; and heat prostration and heat stroke from increasingly prevalent heat waves.

The reviewers also examined evidence suggesting links between climate change and pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, sleep disorders, and occupational pulmonary disorders.
 

Power to the patients

“Pulmonologists should counsel patients on ways to minimize outdoor and indoor pollution, using tight-fitting respirators and home air-purifying systems without encroaching on patients’ beliefs and choices,” the authors advise.

“Empowering patients with resources to monitor air quality daily, in inclement weather, and during disasters would help minimize exposure and thus improve overall health. The pulmonologist can play an important role in emphasizing the impact of climate change on pulmonary disorders during patient care encounters,” they write.

Ms. Balakrishan adds that another important mitigation measure that can be taken today is education.

“In medical school we don’t really learn about the impact of climate change – at least in my generation of physicians, climate change or global warming weren’t part of the medical curriculum – but now I think that there’s a lot of advocacy work being done by medical students who actually want more education on climate change and its effects on pulmonary diseases,” she said.

The study by Ms. Balakrishnan and colleagues was unfunded. Ms. Balakrishnan reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Mary-Beth Scholand, MD, has received personal fees from serving on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for Genentech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, and United Therapeutics. Co-author Sean Callahan, MD, has received personal fees for serving on advisory boards for Gilead and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fineman reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with asthma have an elevated risk for a variety of cancers other than lung cancer, including melanoma as well as blood, kidney, and ovarian cancers, new research suggests.

But, the authors found, treatment with an inhaled steroid may lower that risk, perhaps by keeping inflammation in check.

“Using real-world data, our study is the first to provide evidence of a positive association between asthma and cancer risk in United States patients,” Yi Guo, PhD, with the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cancer Medicine.

The relationship between chronic inflammation and cancer remains a key area of exploration in cancer etiology. Data show that the risk for developing cancer is higher in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, and patients with asthma have complex and chronic inflammation. However, prior studies exploring a possible link between asthma and cancer have yielded mixed results.

To investigate further, Dr. Guo and colleagues analyzed electronic health records and claims data in the OneFlorida+ clinical research network for roughly 90,000 adults with asthma and a matched cohort of about 270,000 adults without asthma.

Multivariable analysis revealed that adults with asthma were more likely to develop cancer, compared with peers without asthma (hazard ratio, 1.36), the investigators found.

Adults with asthma had an elevated cancer risk for five of the 13 cancers assessed, including melanoma (HR, 1.98), ovarian cancer (HR, 1.88), lung cancer (HR, 1.56), kidney cancer (HR, 1.48), and blood cancer (HR, 1.26).

Compared with adults without asthma, those with asthma who did not treat it with an inhaled steroid had a more pronounced overall cancer risk, compared with those who were on an inhaled steroid (HR, 1.60 vs. 1.11).

For specific cancer types, the risk was elevated for nine of 13 cancers in patients with asthma not taking an inhaled steroid: prostate (HR, 1.50), lung (HR, 1.74), colorectal (HR, 1.51), blood (HR, 1.44), melanoma (HR, 2.05), corpus uteri (HR, 1.76), kidney (HR, 1.52), ovarian (HR, 2.31), and cervical (HR, 1.46).

In contrast, in patients with asthma who did use an inhaled steroid, an elevated cancer risk was observed for only two cancers, lung cancer (HR, 1.39) and melanoma (HR, 1.92), suggesting a potential protective effect of inhaled steroid use on cancer, the researchers said.

Although prior studies have shown a protective effect of inhaled steroid use on some cancers, potentially by reducing inflammation, the “speculative nature of chronic inflammation (asthma as a common example) as a driver for pan-cancer development requires more investigation,” Dr. Guo and colleagues cautioned.

And because of the observational nature of the current study, Dr. Guo’s team stressed that these findings do not prove a causal relationship between asthma and cancer.

“More in-depth studies using real-word data are needed to further explore the causal mechanisms of asthma on cancer risk,” the researchers concluded.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants to the researchers from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Aging, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This project was supported by the Cancer Informatics Shared Resource in the University of Florida Health Cancer Center. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

People with asthma have an elevated risk for a variety of cancers other than lung cancer, including melanoma as well as blood, kidney, and ovarian cancers, new research suggests.

But, the authors found, treatment with an inhaled steroid may lower that risk, perhaps by keeping inflammation in check.

“Using real-world data, our study is the first to provide evidence of a positive association between asthma and cancer risk in United States patients,” Yi Guo, PhD, with the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cancer Medicine.

The relationship between chronic inflammation and cancer remains a key area of exploration in cancer etiology. Data show that the risk for developing cancer is higher in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, and patients with asthma have complex and chronic inflammation. However, prior studies exploring a possible link between asthma and cancer have yielded mixed results.

To investigate further, Dr. Guo and colleagues analyzed electronic health records and claims data in the OneFlorida+ clinical research network for roughly 90,000 adults with asthma and a matched cohort of about 270,000 adults without asthma.

Multivariable analysis revealed that adults with asthma were more likely to develop cancer, compared with peers without asthma (hazard ratio, 1.36), the investigators found.

Adults with asthma had an elevated cancer risk for five of the 13 cancers assessed, including melanoma (HR, 1.98), ovarian cancer (HR, 1.88), lung cancer (HR, 1.56), kidney cancer (HR, 1.48), and blood cancer (HR, 1.26).

Compared with adults without asthma, those with asthma who did not treat it with an inhaled steroid had a more pronounced overall cancer risk, compared with those who were on an inhaled steroid (HR, 1.60 vs. 1.11).

For specific cancer types, the risk was elevated for nine of 13 cancers in patients with asthma not taking an inhaled steroid: prostate (HR, 1.50), lung (HR, 1.74), colorectal (HR, 1.51), blood (HR, 1.44), melanoma (HR, 2.05), corpus uteri (HR, 1.76), kidney (HR, 1.52), ovarian (HR, 2.31), and cervical (HR, 1.46).

In contrast, in patients with asthma who did use an inhaled steroid, an elevated cancer risk was observed for only two cancers, lung cancer (HR, 1.39) and melanoma (HR, 1.92), suggesting a potential protective effect of inhaled steroid use on cancer, the researchers said.

Although prior studies have shown a protective effect of inhaled steroid use on some cancers, potentially by reducing inflammation, the “speculative nature of chronic inflammation (asthma as a common example) as a driver for pan-cancer development requires more investigation,” Dr. Guo and colleagues cautioned.

And because of the observational nature of the current study, Dr. Guo’s team stressed that these findings do not prove a causal relationship between asthma and cancer.

“More in-depth studies using real-word data are needed to further explore the causal mechanisms of asthma on cancer risk,” the researchers concluded.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants to the researchers from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Aging, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This project was supported by the Cancer Informatics Shared Resource in the University of Florida Health Cancer Center. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

People with asthma have an elevated risk for a variety of cancers other than lung cancer, including melanoma as well as blood, kidney, and ovarian cancers, new research suggests.

But, the authors found, treatment with an inhaled steroid may lower that risk, perhaps by keeping inflammation in check.

“Using real-world data, our study is the first to provide evidence of a positive association between asthma and cancer risk in United States patients,” Yi Guo, PhD, with the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Cancer Medicine.

The relationship between chronic inflammation and cancer remains a key area of exploration in cancer etiology. Data show that the risk for developing cancer is higher in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases, and patients with asthma have complex and chronic inflammation. However, prior studies exploring a possible link between asthma and cancer have yielded mixed results.

To investigate further, Dr. Guo and colleagues analyzed electronic health records and claims data in the OneFlorida+ clinical research network for roughly 90,000 adults with asthma and a matched cohort of about 270,000 adults without asthma.

Multivariable analysis revealed that adults with asthma were more likely to develop cancer, compared with peers without asthma (hazard ratio, 1.36), the investigators found.

Adults with asthma had an elevated cancer risk for five of the 13 cancers assessed, including melanoma (HR, 1.98), ovarian cancer (HR, 1.88), lung cancer (HR, 1.56), kidney cancer (HR, 1.48), and blood cancer (HR, 1.26).

Compared with adults without asthma, those with asthma who did not treat it with an inhaled steroid had a more pronounced overall cancer risk, compared with those who were on an inhaled steroid (HR, 1.60 vs. 1.11).

For specific cancer types, the risk was elevated for nine of 13 cancers in patients with asthma not taking an inhaled steroid: prostate (HR, 1.50), lung (HR, 1.74), colorectal (HR, 1.51), blood (HR, 1.44), melanoma (HR, 2.05), corpus uteri (HR, 1.76), kidney (HR, 1.52), ovarian (HR, 2.31), and cervical (HR, 1.46).

In contrast, in patients with asthma who did use an inhaled steroid, an elevated cancer risk was observed for only two cancers, lung cancer (HR, 1.39) and melanoma (HR, 1.92), suggesting a potential protective effect of inhaled steroid use on cancer, the researchers said.

Although prior studies have shown a protective effect of inhaled steroid use on some cancers, potentially by reducing inflammation, the “speculative nature of chronic inflammation (asthma as a common example) as a driver for pan-cancer development requires more investigation,” Dr. Guo and colleagues cautioned.

And because of the observational nature of the current study, Dr. Guo’s team stressed that these findings do not prove a causal relationship between asthma and cancer.

“More in-depth studies using real-word data are needed to further explore the causal mechanisms of asthma on cancer risk,” the researchers concluded.

Funding for the study was provided in part by grants to the researchers from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Aging, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This project was supported by the Cancer Informatics Shared Resource in the University of Florida Health Cancer Center. The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”

Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.

He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.

“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.

Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.

But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.

“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”

A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.

Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.

“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”

Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.

Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.

Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.

Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.

“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.

For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.

Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.

Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”

One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.

“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.

The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.

The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.

But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.

Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”

Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.

“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.

Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.

“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.

Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.

“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”

But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.

“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
 

Will vaping be a ‘phase?’

Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.

“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”

But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.

“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”

Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”

Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.

He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.

“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.

Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.

But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.

“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”

A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.

Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.

“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”

Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.

Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.

Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.

Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.

“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.

For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.

Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.

Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”

One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.

“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.

The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.

The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.

But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.

Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”

Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.

“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.

Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.

“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.

Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.

“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”

But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.

“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
 

Will vaping be a ‘phase?’

Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.

“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”

But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.

“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”

Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Jake Warn calls vaping “a toxic artificial love.”

Jake, of Winslow, Maine, was 16 years old when he began vaping. Unlike cigarettes, vaping can be odorless, and its smoke leaves no trace, which allowed him and his friends to use the devices in school bathrooms without fear of being caught.

He would use an entire cartridge containing the vape liquid, the equivalent of smoking one pack of tobacco cigarettes, within 1 school day. By the fall semester of his first year in college, Jake said his use had increased even more.

“It got pricey, so that’s when I really started to notice” the extent of his dependency, he said recently.

Vaping rates among teenagers in Maine doubled from 15.3% to 28.7% between 2017 and 2019, while Jake was in high school. In 2021, 11% of high schoolers across the nation said they regularly smoked e-cigarettes, and an estimated 28% have ever tried the devices, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Food and Drug Administration classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product because many contain nicotine, which comes from tobacco. Like Jake, the habit is likely to carry into adulthood for many who start in their teenage years, experts say.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) such as vapes have been touted by their manufacturers and by some in the medical field as a healthier alternative to cigarettes and as a method to help smokers give up the habit.

But, that’s not how Jake – who had never used combustible cigarettes – picked up vaping, or how he sold the idea to his mother.

“It’s all organic and natural flavoring, it’s just flavored water,” Mary Lou Warn recalled her son saying to her. She researched the health effects of vaping but didn’t find much online. “I knew they were dangerous because you don’t put anything in your lungs that isn’t fresh air.”

A determined athlete in high school, Jake found that his asthma worsened as he transitioned to college, especially when he ran a track meet or during a soccer game.

Mrs. Warn noticed changes off the field, too.

“He was coughing constantly, he wasn’t sleeping well, he wasn’t eating well,” she said. “I knew the addiction was taking over.”

Vaping irritated Jake’s throat, and he would get nosebleeds that he couldn’t stop, she added.

Since Mrs. Warn first looked into the effects of e-cigarettes on respiratory health back in 2017, many studies have been conducted of the short-term health outcomes for first-time smokers who never used combustible tobacco products. Studies suggest that vaping may worsen bronchitis and asthma, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development in young users, suppress the immune system, and increase the risk of developing a chronic lung disease (Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58[2]:182-90). Studies of mice and cell cultures have found that the vapor or extracts from vapes damage the chemical structure of DNA.

Still, the limited number of long-term human studies has made it hard to know what the health outcomes of e-cigarette users will be in the future. Conclusive studies linking commercial cigarette use to deaths from heart disease and cancer didn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, decades after manufacturers began mass production and marketing in the early 20th century.

Years could pass before researchers gain a clearer understanding of the health implications of long-term e-cigarette use, according to Nigar Nargis, PhD, senior scientific director of tobacco control research at the American Cancer Society.

“There hasn’t been any such study to establish the direct link from ENDS to cancer, but it is understood that it [vaping] may promote the development of cancer and lung damage and inflammation,” Dr. Nargis said.

For decades, advocates built awareness of the harms of tobacco use, which led to a sharp decline in tobacco-related illnesses such as lung cancer. But Hilary Schneider, Maine’s director of government relations for the ACS Cancer Action Network, said she fears the uptick in the use of vapes – especially among those who never smoked or those who use both combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes – may reverse declines in the rates of smoking-relating diseases.

Multiple studies suggest that inhaling chemicals found in e-cigarettes – including nicotine-carrying aerosols – can damage arteries and inflame and injure the lungs.

Vapes “basically have created a pediatric tobacco-use epidemic,” Ms. Schneider said. “What we’re seeing is unprecedented tobacco use rates, higher rates than we’ve seen in decades.”

One reason many young people start vaping is the attraction to flavors, which range from classic menthol to fruits and sweets. A handful of states have enacted bans or restrictions on the sale of flavored vapes.

“It’s new, and it’s just been marketed in a way that we’re really fighting the false narrative put out there by makers of these products that are trying to make them appealing to kids,” said Rachel Boykan, MD, clinical professor of pediatrics and attending physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Children’s Hospital.

The flavor Red Bull, in particular, hooked Jake. And though he wasn’t aware of it at the time, nicotine packed into the pods may have kept him from quitting: The average nicotine concentration in e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2013 to 2018, according to a study by the Truth Initiative and the CDC.

The immediate risks of nicotine on the developing brain are well documented. Studies suggest that nicotine – which is found in ENDS products – may affect adolescents’ ability to learn, remember, and maintain attention.

But many adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes say that vaping helps alleviate anxiety and keep them attentive, which adds to the complexity of their dependency, according to Dr. Boykan.

Nicotine “actually interrupts neural circuits, that it can be associated with more anxiety, depression, attention to learning, and susceptibility to other addictive substances,” she said. “That is enough to make it very scary.”

Jake also said a social environment in which so many of his friends vaped also made it difficult for him to quit.

“You’re hanging out with your friends at night, and all of them are using it, and you’re trying not to,” he said.

Jake eventually took a semester off from college for an unrelated surgery. He moved home, away from his vaping classmates. He eventually transferred to a different college and lived at home, where no one vaped and where he wasn’t allowed to smoke in the house, he said.

“He came home and we took him to a doctor, and they didn’t know quite how to handle kids and addiction to e-cigarettes,” Mrs. Warn said.

Not fully understanding the long-term health implications of e-cigarette use has precluded many clinicians from offering clear messaging on the risk of vaping to current and potential users.

“It’s taken pediatricians time to ask the right questions and recognize nicotine addiction” from vaping, said Dr. Boykan, who serves as chair of the Section on Nicotine and Tobacco Prevention and Treatment of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “It’s just hit us so fast.”

But once pediatricians do identify a nicotine dependency, it can be difficult to treat, Dr. Boykan said. Many pediatricians now recognize that e-cigarette addiction may occur in children as early as middle school.

“We don’t have a lot of evidence-based treatments for kids to recommend,” Dr. Boykan said.
 

Will vaping be a ‘phase?’

Aware of his vaping dependency and the possible risks to his long-term health, Jake, now 23, said he’s lessened his use, compared with his college days, but still struggles to kick the habit for good.

“I’d like to not be able to use all the time, not to feel the urge,” Jake said. “But I think over time it’ll just kind of phase out.”

But his mother said quitting may not be that simple.

“This will be a lifelong journey,” she said. “When I think of who he is, addiction is something he will always have. It’s a part of him now.”

Dr. Boykan, Ms. Schneider, and Dr. Nardis reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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