Pulmonology

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly half of hospitalized COVID-19 patients without a prior diabetes diagnosis have hyperglycemia, and the latter is an independent predictor of mortality at 28 days, new research indicates.

The findings, from a retrospective analysis of 605 patients with COVID-19 seen at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, were published online July 10 in Diabetologia by Sufei Wang, of the department of respiratory and critical care medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, and colleagues.

Several previous studies have demonstrated a link between hyperglycemia and worse outcomes in COVID-19, and at least one diabetes diagnosis, but this is the first to focus specifically on that group of patients.

Wang and colleagues found that a fasting blood glucose of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater on admission – present in 45.6% of those without a prior diabetes diagnosis – was an independent predictor of 28-day mortality.

Although A1c data weren’t analyzed, the population is believed to include both individuals with preexisting but undiagnosed diabetes and those without diabetes who have acute stress hyperglycemia.

“Glycemic testing and control should be recommended for all COVID-19 patients even if they do not have preexisting diabetes, as most COVID-19 patients are prone to glucose metabolic disorders,” they emphasized.

“Addressing elevated fasting blood glucose at an early stage can help clinicians better manage the condition and lower the mortality risk of COVID-19 patients,” Wang and colleagues noted.
 

Hyperglycemia predicts COVID-19 death, complications

The study involved consecutive patients with COVID-19 and definitive 28-day outcome and fasting blood glucose measurement on admission to two Wuhan-area hospitals between Jan. 24 to Feb. 10, 2020. A total of 605 patients did not have a previous diabetes diagnosis. They were a median age of 59 years and 53.2% were men.

Just over half, 54.4%, had a fasting blood glucose below 6.1 mmol/L (110.0 mg/dL). The rest had dysglycemia: 16.5% had a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL), considered the prediabetes range, and 29.1% had a fasting blood glucose of 7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or above, the cutoff for diabetes.

“These results indicate that our study included both undiagnosed diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients with hyperglycemia caused by an acute blood glucose disorder,” the authors noted.

Over 28 days of hospitalization, 18.8% (114) of the patients died and 39.2% developed one or more in-hospital complications. 

The authors used the CRB-65 score, which assigns 1 point for each of four indicators – confusion, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≤60 mm Hg, and age ≥65 years – to assess pneumonia severity.

Just over half, 55.2%, had a CRB-65 score of 0, 43.1% had a score of 1-2, and 1.7% had a score of 3-4.

In multivariable analysis, significant independent predictors of 28-day mortality were age (hazard ratio, 1.02), male sex (HR, 1.75), CRB-65 score 1-2 (HR, 2.68), CRB-65 score 3-4 (HR, 5.25), and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 2.30).

Compared with patients with normal glucose (<6.1 mmol/L), 28-day mortality was twice as high (HR, 2.06) for those with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L and more than threefold higher for ≥7.0 mmol/L (HR, 3.54).

Pneumonia severity also predicted 28-day mortality, with hazard ratios of 4.35 and 13.80 for patients with CRB-65 scores of 1-2 and 3-4, respectively, compared with 0.

Inhospital complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute cardiac, kidney, or liver injury or cerebrovascular accident, occurred in 14.2%, 7.9%, and 17.0% of those in the lowest to highest fasting blood glucose groups.

Complications were more than twice as common in patients with a fasting blood glucose of 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (HR, 2.61) and four times more common (HR, 3.99) among those with a fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol/L, compared with those with normoglycemia.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Major Projects of the National Science and Technology. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.

For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.

Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.

The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:

• Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
• Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
• Complete blood counts (n = 222).
• Blood cultures (n = 129).
• Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
• Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).

In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.

“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”

The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).

He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.

While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.

For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.

Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.

The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:

• Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
• Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
• Complete blood counts (n = 222).
• Blood cultures (n = 129).
• Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
• Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).

In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.

“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”

The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).

He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.

While guidelines for bronchiolitis aim to reduce gratuitous tests and treatments, one-third of infants presenting at EDs with bronchiolitis receive an unnecessary intervention, according to a new global study.

For infants with symptoms of bronchiolitis, viral testing, blood tests, and chest x-rays are discouraged in most cases. Antibiotics are not recommended as treatment.

In a study published in Pediatrics, Amy Zipursky, MD, of the Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, reviewed records for 2,359 infants aged 2-11 months diagnosed with bronchiolitis during the year 2013. The data came from a network of 38 EDs in the Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues found that, while 8% of infants in the cohort had been treated with antibiotics, 33% had received at least one nonrecommended test, with rates ranging widely across regions. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, only 15% received such a test, compared with 50% in Spain and Portugal.

Of the children given antibiotics, two-thirds had suspected bacterial infections, the researchers found. Antibiotic use was highest in the United States, at 11% of infants seen for bronchiolitis, and lowest in the United Kingdom and Ireland at 4%. Administration of chest x-rays – which occurred in nearly a quarter of the cohort – increased the likelihood of antibiotics being administered (odds ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-3.24) independent of fever or severe symptoms.

The most common nonrecommended tests performed in the study were:

• Nasopharyngeal viral testing without admission to hospital (n = 591).
• Chest x-ray without ICU admission (n = 507).
• Complete blood counts (n = 222).
• Blood cultures (n = 129).
• Urinalysis in the absence of fever (n = 86).
• Febrile infants 3 months of age or less had blood cultures (n = 49).

In some treatment centers the rate of nonrecommended tests performed was 6%, while others saw rates of 74%.

“Despite the evidence that laboratory testing rarely impacts bronchiolitis management and that bacterial infections in bronchiolitis are uncommon, our study reveals that these tests continue to be performed frequently in many parts of the world,” Dr. Zipursky and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

“Plausible reasons may include ‘automatic’ blood draws with intravenous placement, uncertainty about institutional policies, perceived need for reassurance about the diagnosis, perception of ‘doing something,’ and parental desire for a viral label,” the authors surmised. “Because parental pressure to provide interventions may be a driver of care in infants with bronchiolitis in some countries, ED clinicians need to have higher confidence in the evidence-based bronchiolitis care and convey this trust to families.”

The researchers listed among the weaknesses of their study its retrospective design, and that results from x-rays and lab tests performed were not available.

In an editorial comment accompanying the study, Joseph J. Zorc, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, noted that some of the regional differences seen in the study may be attributable to different clinical criteria used to diagnose bronchiolitis. In the United Kingdom, for example, national guidelines include the presence of crackles, while in North America guidelines focus on wheeze. “Perhaps clinicians in the United Kingdom accept the presence of crackles as an expected finding in infant with bronchiolitis and are less likely to order imaging,” Dr. Zorc said (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146[2]:e20193684).

He also pointed out that the coronavirus pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID- 19) could have an impact on global testing and treatment practices for bronchiolitis, as coronaviruses are a known cause of bronchiolitis. The Pediatric Emergency Research Network, comprising the 38 EDs from which Dr. Zipursky and colleagues drew their data, is conducting a prospective study looking at pediatric disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

The “collaboration of international networks of pediatric emergency providers is an encouraging sign of potential opportunities to come ... [providing] an opportunity to evaluate variation that can lead to innovation,” Dr. Zorc concluded.

Dr. Zipursky and colleagues reported no external funding or relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Zorc reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zipursky A et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 13;146(2):e2020002311.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Children appear less likely than adults to be the first cases of COVID-19 within a household, based on data from families of 39 children younger than 16 years.

Courtesy NIAID

“Unlike with other viral respiratory infections, children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission,” said Klara M. Posfay-Barbe, MD, of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers analyzed data from all COVID-19 patients younger than 16 years who were identified between March 10, 2020, and April 10, 2020, through a hospital surveillance network. Parents and household contacts were called for contact tracing.

In 31 of 39 (79%) households, at least one adult family member had a suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before onset of symptoms in the child. These findings support data from previous studies suggesting that children mainly become infected from adult family members rather than transmitting the virus to them, the researchers said

In only 3 of 39 (8%) households was the study child the first to develop symptoms. “Surprisingly, in 33% of households, symptomatic HHCs [household contacts] tested negative despite belonging to a familial cluster with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, suggesting an underreporting of cases,” Dr. Posfay-Barbe and associates noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including potential underreporting of cases because those with mild or atypical presentations may not have sought medical care, and the inability to confirm child-to-adult transmission. The results were strengthened by the extensive contact tracing and very few individuals lost to follow-up, they said; however, more diagnostic screening and contact tracing are needed to improve understanding of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they concluded.

Resolving the issue of how much children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is essential to making informed decisions about public health, including how to structure schools and child-care facility reopening, Benjamin Lee, MD, and William V. Raszka Jr., MD, both of the University of Vermont, Burlington, said in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds/2020-004879).

The data in the current study support other studies of transmission among household contacts in China suggesting that, in most cases of childhood infections, “the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them,” they wrote.

In addition, the limited data on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children outside of the household show few cases of secondary infection from children identified with SARS-CoV-2 in school settings in studies from France and Australia, Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka noted.

“On the basis of these data, SARS-CoV2 transmission in schools may be less important in community transmission than initially feared,” the editorialists wrote. “This would be another manner by which SARS-CoV2 differs drastically from influenza, for which school-based transmission is well recognized as a significant driver of epidemic disease and forms the basis for most evidence regarding school closures as public health strategy.”

“Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread,” the editorialists concluded. “In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity,” Dr. Lee and Dr. Raszka emphasized.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Posfay-Barbe KM et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1576.

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Extended use of corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory conditions puts patients at risk for serious adverse events (AEs), including cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, cataracts, and diabetes. Now, a growing body of evidence suggests that even short bursts of these drugs are associated with serious risks.

Most recently, a population-based study of more than 2.6 million people found that taking corticosteroids for 14 days or less was associated with a substantially greater risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, sepsis, and heart failure, particularly within the first 30 days after therapy.

In the study, Tsung-Chieh Yao, MD, PhD, a professor in the division of allergy, asthma, and rheumatology in the department of pediatrics at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taoyuan, Taiwan, and colleagues used a self-controlled case series to analyze data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database of medical claims. They compared patients’ conditions in the period from 5 to 90 days before treatment to conditions from the periods from 5 to 30 days and from 31 to 90 days after therapy.

With a median duration of 3 days of treatment, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.80 (95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.84) for GI bleeding, 1.99 (95% CI, 1.70-2.32) for sepsis, and 2.37 (95% CI, 2.13-2.63) for heart failure.

Given the findings, physicians should weigh the benefits against the risks of rare but potentially serious consequences of these anti-inflammatory drugs, according to the authors.

“After initiating patients on oral steroid bursts, physicians should be on the lookout for these severe adverse events, particularly within the first month after initiation of steroid therapy,” Dr. Yao said in an interview.

The findings were published online July 6 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Of the 15,859,129 adult Asians in the Taiwanese database, the study included 2,623,327 adults aged 20-64 years who received single steroid bursts (14 days or less) between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015.

Almost 60% of the indications were for skin disorders, such as eczema and urticaria, and for respiratory tract infections, such as sinusitis and acute pharyngitis. Among specialties, dermatology, otolaryngology, family practice, internal medicine, and pediatrics accounted for 88% of prescriptions.

“Our findings are important for physicians and guideline developers because short-term use of oral corticosteroids is common and the real-world safety of this approach remains unclear,” the authors wrote. They acknowledged that the database did not provide information on such potential confounders as disease severity and lifestyle factors, nor did it include children and vulnerable individuals, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

The findings echo those of a 2017 cohort study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That study, by Akbar K. Waljee, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues, included data on more than 1.5 million privately insured U.S. adults. The researchers included somewhat longer steroid bursts of up to 30 days’ duration and found that use of the drugs was associated with a greater than fivefold increased risk for sepsis, a more than threefold increased risk for venous thromboembolism, and a nearly twofold increased risk for fracture within 30 days of starting treatment.

Furthermore, the elevated risk persisted at prednisone-equivalent doses of less than 20 mg/d (IRR, 4.02 for sepsis, 3.61 for venous thromboembolism, and 1.83 for fracture; all P < .001).

The U.S. study also found that during the 3-year period from 2012 to 2014, more than 20% of patients were prescribed short-term oral corticosteroids.

“Both studies indicate that these short-term regimens are more common in the real world than was previously thought and are not risk free,” Dr. Yao said.

Recognition that corticosteroids are associated with adverse events has been building for decades, according to the authors of an editorial that accompanies the new study.

“However, we commonly use short corticosteroid ‘bursts’ for minor ailments despite a lack of evidence for meaningful benefit. We are now learning that bursts as short as 3 days may increase risk for serious AEs, even in young and healthy people,” wrote editorialists Beth I. Wallace, MD, of the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation at Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, and Dr. Waljee, who led the 2017 study.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Waljee drew parallels between corticosteroid bursts and other short-term regimens, such as of antibiotics and opiates, in which prescriber preference and sometimes patient pressure play a role. “All of these treatments have well-defined indications but can cause net harm when used. We can thus conceive of a corticosteroid stewardship model of targeted interventions that aims to reduce inappropriate prescribing,” they wrote.

In an interview, Dr. Wallace, a rheumatologist who prescribes oral steroids fairly frequently, noted that the Taiwan study is the first to investigate steroid bursts. “Up till now, these very short courses have flown under the radar. Clinicians very commonly prescribe short courses to help relieve symptoms of self-limited conditions like bronchitis, and we assume that because the exposure duration is short, the risks are low, especially for patients who are otherwise healthy.”

She warned that the data in the current study indicate that these short bursts – even at the lower end of the 1- to 2-week courses American physicians prescribe most often – carry small but real increases in risk for serious AEs. “And these increases were seen in young, healthy people, not just in people with preexisting conditions,” she said. “So, we might need to start thinking harder about how we are prescribing even these very short courses of steroids and try to use steroids only when their meaningful benefits really outweigh the risk.”

She noted that a patient with a chronic inflammatory condition such as rheumatoid arthritis may benefit substantially from short-term steroids to treat a disease flare. In that specific case, the benefits of short-term steroids may outweigh the risks, Dr. Wallace said.

But not everyone thinks a new strategy is needed. For Whitney A. High, MD, associate professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, the overprescribing of short-term corticosteroids is not a problem, and dermatologists are already exercising caution.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I only prescribe these drugs short term to, at a guess, about 1 in 40 patients and only when a patient is miserable and quality of life is being seriously affected,” he said in an interview. “And that’s something that can’t be measured in a database study like the one from Taiwan but only in a risk-benefit analysis,” he said.

Furthermore, dermatologists have other drugs and technologies in their armamentarium, including topical steroids with occlusion or with wet wraps, phototherapy, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, calcipotriene, methotrexate and other immunosuppressive agents, and biologics. “In fact, many of these agents are specifically referred to as steroid-sparing,” Dr. High said.

Nor does he experience much pressure from patients to prescribe these drugs. “While occasionally I may encounter a patient who places pressure on me for oral steroids, it’s probably not nearly as frequently as providers in other fields are pressured to prescribe antibiotics or narcotics,” he said.

According to the Taiwanese researchers, the next step is to conduct more studies, including clinical trials, to determine optimal use of corticosteroids by monitoring adverse events. In the meantime, for practitioners such as Dr. Wallace and Dr. High, there is ample evidence from several recent studies of the harms of short-term corticosteroids, whereas the benefits for patients with self-limiting conditions remain uncertain. “This and other studies like it quite appropriately remind providers to avoid oral steroids when they’re not necessary and to seek alternatives where possible,” Dr. High said.

The study was supported by the National Health Research Institutes of Taiwan, the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan, the Chang Gung Medical Foundation, and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Yao has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wu has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. The editorialists and Dr. High have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace received an NIH grant during the writing of the editorial.
 

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

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Brensocatib, an experimental small-molecule inhibitor targeted to inflammation-regulating neutrophil serine proteases, may be a novel, nonantibiotic option for reducing exacerbations in patients with bronchiectasis, investigators in the phase 2 WILLOW study said.

Among 256 adults with a recent history of bronchiectasis exacerbations, oral brensocatib at doses of both 10 mg and 25 mg daily for 24 weeks was associated with significantly longer time to first exacerbation than placebo, and the 10-mg dose was associated with a significant reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, reported James Chalmers, MB, ChB, PhD of Ninewells Hospital and Medical School in Dundee (England).

“We also observed a dose-dependent reduction in neutrophil elastase levels in sputum, which supports the mechanism of action of this drug, and importantly showed a link between reducing neutrophil serine protease activity and clinical benefits in people with bronchiectasis,” he said in at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This is a very important trial, a landmark trial for people with bronchiectasis, because this is a drug that for the first time appears to be able to target directly neutrophilic inflammation, resulting in clinical benefit,” he said.

Pulmonologist Jennifer L. Taylor-Cousar, MD, MSCS, of National Jewish Health in Denver, who was facilitator for the online presentation but was not involved in the study, said that it offered welcome news.

“For those of us who treat bronchiectasis, a safe and effective anti-inflammatory has really been the Holy Grail, so this is really exciting,” she said.
 

Novel mechanism of action

Frequent exacerbations in bronchiectasis are related to uncontrolled neutrophilic inflammation, and proinflammatory neutrophil serine proteases (NSPs), including neutrophil elastase, are seen at increased levels in sputum of patients with bronchiectasis. In addition, the presence in sputum of elevated NSPs are associated with exacerbations and poor quality of life, Dr. Chalmers said.

Brensocatib is an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 1 (DPP1), a lysosomal cysteine protease that is responsible for NSP activation in bone marrow during the neutrophil maturation cycle.

In phase 1 trials, brensocatib was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in neutrophil elastase in healthy volunteers.
 

Three WILLOW branches

In the phase 2 WILLOW trial, patients with bronchiectasis not related to cystic fibrosis were screened and stratified by Pseudomonas aeruginosa on sputum culture and use of macrolide antibiotics and then randomized in equal proportions to receive either brensocatib at daily oral doses of 25 mg or 10 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a 4-week off-treatment period.

Both doses of brensocatib met the primary endpoint of time to first exacerbation, compared with placebo. The hazard ratio (HR) for the 10-mg brensocatib dose, compared with placebo was 0.58 (P = .029), and the HR for the 25-mg dose was 0.62 (P = .046).

The exacerbation rate over 24 weeks among patients on placebo was 48.3%, compared with 31.7% of patients on 10 mg brensocatib (P = .033) and 33.3% of patients on the 25 mg dose (P = .038).

The annualized exacerbation rate was 1.37 for patients on placebo, compared with 0.88 with 10 mg brensocatib (P = .041) and 1.03 with 25 mg brensocatib (nonsignificant).

In both brensocatib groups there were significant reductions from baseline neutrophil elastase concentrations in sputum, compared with placebo (P = .034 for 10 mg and .021 for 25 mg). During the 4-week period following treatment neutrophil elastase levels in both active drug arms rose rapidly and returned to baseline.

The importance of these reductions was reflected in pooled data from the two brensocatib cohorts, which showed that patients who achieved neutrophil elastase levels below the limit of quantification had a significantly lower incidence of bronchiectasis exacerbations (HR 0.28, P < .0001).

Although the study was not powered to compare changes in postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) levels, placebo-treated patients had a numerically larger decline in lung function from baseline, compared with brensocatib-treated patients.
 

Safety

Expected adverse events with brensocatib included those associated with Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome, a rare congenital condition caused by the absence of the gene coding for DPP1, resulting in keratinization leading to redness, thickening of soles and palms, and severe, destructive periodontal disease, as well as reduced immune response to bacterial infection.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) resulting in study discontinuation occurred in only three patients on placebo and 10 mg brensocatib, and four on the 25-mg dose. TEAEs resulting in treatment discontinuation were more common in the placebo arm, occurring in nine patients compared with six each in the brensocatib arms.

Serious TEAEs occurring in more than 3% of patients in any group included infective exacerbations in three patients on placebo, none on the 10-mg dose, and four on the 25-mg dose of brensocatib. Respective numbers of patients with treatment-emergent pneumonia were three, zero, and four.

Other TEAEs included cough, headache, sputum increase, dyspnea, and diarrhea.

Adverse events of special interest included skin events in 10 patients on placebo, 12 on the 10-mg dose, and 21 on the 25-mg brensocatib dose. Dental changes occurred in 3, 13, and 9 patients, and infections in 9, 12, and 14 patients, respectively.

A phase 3 study to confirm efficacy and establish the optimal dose of brensocatib is planned for the end of 2020, “COVID willing,” Dr. Chalmers said.

Dr. Chalmers disclosed consultancy with and research funding from Insmed, which funded the study. Dr. Taylor-Cousar has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from various companies.

Brensocatib, an experimental small-molecule inhibitor targeted to inflammation-regulating neutrophil serine proteases, may be a novel, nonantibiotic option for reducing exacerbations in patients with bronchiectasis, investigators in the phase 2 WILLOW study said.

Among 256 adults with a recent history of bronchiectasis exacerbations, oral brensocatib at doses of both 10 mg and 25 mg daily for 24 weeks was associated with significantly longer time to first exacerbation than placebo, and the 10-mg dose was associated with a significant reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, reported James Chalmers, MB, ChB, PhD of Ninewells Hospital and Medical School in Dundee (England).

“We also observed a dose-dependent reduction in neutrophil elastase levels in sputum, which supports the mechanism of action of this drug, and importantly showed a link between reducing neutrophil serine protease activity and clinical benefits in people with bronchiectasis,” he said in at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This is a very important trial, a landmark trial for people with bronchiectasis, because this is a drug that for the first time appears to be able to target directly neutrophilic inflammation, resulting in clinical benefit,” he said.

Pulmonologist Jennifer L. Taylor-Cousar, MD, MSCS, of National Jewish Health in Denver, who was facilitator for the online presentation but was not involved in the study, said that it offered welcome news.

“For those of us who treat bronchiectasis, a safe and effective anti-inflammatory has really been the Holy Grail, so this is really exciting,” she said.
 

Novel mechanism of action

Frequent exacerbations in bronchiectasis are related to uncontrolled neutrophilic inflammation, and proinflammatory neutrophil serine proteases (NSPs), including neutrophil elastase, are seen at increased levels in sputum of patients with bronchiectasis. In addition, the presence in sputum of elevated NSPs are associated with exacerbations and poor quality of life, Dr. Chalmers said.

Brensocatib is an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 1 (DPP1), a lysosomal cysteine protease that is responsible for NSP activation in bone marrow during the neutrophil maturation cycle.

In phase 1 trials, brensocatib was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in neutrophil elastase in healthy volunteers.
 

Three WILLOW branches

In the phase 2 WILLOW trial, patients with bronchiectasis not related to cystic fibrosis were screened and stratified by Pseudomonas aeruginosa on sputum culture and use of macrolide antibiotics and then randomized in equal proportions to receive either brensocatib at daily oral doses of 25 mg or 10 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a 4-week off-treatment period.

Both doses of brensocatib met the primary endpoint of time to first exacerbation, compared with placebo. The hazard ratio (HR) for the 10-mg brensocatib dose, compared with placebo was 0.58 (P = .029), and the HR for the 25-mg dose was 0.62 (P = .046).

The exacerbation rate over 24 weeks among patients on placebo was 48.3%, compared with 31.7% of patients on 10 mg brensocatib (P = .033) and 33.3% of patients on the 25 mg dose (P = .038).

The annualized exacerbation rate was 1.37 for patients on placebo, compared with 0.88 with 10 mg brensocatib (P = .041) and 1.03 with 25 mg brensocatib (nonsignificant).

In both brensocatib groups there were significant reductions from baseline neutrophil elastase concentrations in sputum, compared with placebo (P = .034 for 10 mg and .021 for 25 mg). During the 4-week period following treatment neutrophil elastase levels in both active drug arms rose rapidly and returned to baseline.

The importance of these reductions was reflected in pooled data from the two brensocatib cohorts, which showed that patients who achieved neutrophil elastase levels below the limit of quantification had a significantly lower incidence of bronchiectasis exacerbations (HR 0.28, P < .0001).

Although the study was not powered to compare changes in postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) levels, placebo-treated patients had a numerically larger decline in lung function from baseline, compared with brensocatib-treated patients.
 

Safety

Expected adverse events with brensocatib included those associated with Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome, a rare congenital condition caused by the absence of the gene coding for DPP1, resulting in keratinization leading to redness, thickening of soles and palms, and severe, destructive periodontal disease, as well as reduced immune response to bacterial infection.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) resulting in study discontinuation occurred in only three patients on placebo and 10 mg brensocatib, and four on the 25-mg dose. TEAEs resulting in treatment discontinuation were more common in the placebo arm, occurring in nine patients compared with six each in the brensocatib arms.

Serious TEAEs occurring in more than 3% of patients in any group included infective exacerbations in three patients on placebo, none on the 10-mg dose, and four on the 25-mg dose of brensocatib. Respective numbers of patients with treatment-emergent pneumonia were three, zero, and four.

Other TEAEs included cough, headache, sputum increase, dyspnea, and diarrhea.

Adverse events of special interest included skin events in 10 patients on placebo, 12 on the 10-mg dose, and 21 on the 25-mg brensocatib dose. Dental changes occurred in 3, 13, and 9 patients, and infections in 9, 12, and 14 patients, respectively.

A phase 3 study to confirm efficacy and establish the optimal dose of brensocatib is planned for the end of 2020, “COVID willing,” Dr. Chalmers said.

Dr. Chalmers disclosed consultancy with and research funding from Insmed, which funded the study. Dr. Taylor-Cousar has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from various companies.

Brensocatib, an experimental small-molecule inhibitor targeted to inflammation-regulating neutrophil serine proteases, may be a novel, nonantibiotic option for reducing exacerbations in patients with bronchiectasis, investigators in the phase 2 WILLOW study said.

Among 256 adults with a recent history of bronchiectasis exacerbations, oral brensocatib at doses of both 10 mg and 25 mg daily for 24 weeks was associated with significantly longer time to first exacerbation than placebo, and the 10-mg dose was associated with a significant reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, reported James Chalmers, MB, ChB, PhD of Ninewells Hospital and Medical School in Dundee (England).

“We also observed a dose-dependent reduction in neutrophil elastase levels in sputum, which supports the mechanism of action of this drug, and importantly showed a link between reducing neutrophil serine protease activity and clinical benefits in people with bronchiectasis,” he said in at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This is a very important trial, a landmark trial for people with bronchiectasis, because this is a drug that for the first time appears to be able to target directly neutrophilic inflammation, resulting in clinical benefit,” he said.

Pulmonologist Jennifer L. Taylor-Cousar, MD, MSCS, of National Jewish Health in Denver, who was facilitator for the online presentation but was not involved in the study, said that it offered welcome news.

“For those of us who treat bronchiectasis, a safe and effective anti-inflammatory has really been the Holy Grail, so this is really exciting,” she said.
 

Novel mechanism of action

Frequent exacerbations in bronchiectasis are related to uncontrolled neutrophilic inflammation, and proinflammatory neutrophil serine proteases (NSPs), including neutrophil elastase, are seen at increased levels in sputum of patients with bronchiectasis. In addition, the presence in sputum of elevated NSPs are associated with exacerbations and poor quality of life, Dr. Chalmers said.

Brensocatib is an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 1 (DPP1), a lysosomal cysteine protease that is responsible for NSP activation in bone marrow during the neutrophil maturation cycle.

In phase 1 trials, brensocatib was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in neutrophil elastase in healthy volunteers.
 

Three WILLOW branches

In the phase 2 WILLOW trial, patients with bronchiectasis not related to cystic fibrosis were screened and stratified by Pseudomonas aeruginosa on sputum culture and use of macrolide antibiotics and then randomized in equal proportions to receive either brensocatib at daily oral doses of 25 mg or 10 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks, followed by a 4-week off-treatment period.

Both doses of brensocatib met the primary endpoint of time to first exacerbation, compared with placebo. The hazard ratio (HR) for the 10-mg brensocatib dose, compared with placebo was 0.58 (P = .029), and the HR for the 25-mg dose was 0.62 (P = .046).

The exacerbation rate over 24 weeks among patients on placebo was 48.3%, compared with 31.7% of patients on 10 mg brensocatib (P = .033) and 33.3% of patients on the 25 mg dose (P = .038).

The annualized exacerbation rate was 1.37 for patients on placebo, compared with 0.88 with 10 mg brensocatib (P = .041) and 1.03 with 25 mg brensocatib (nonsignificant).

In both brensocatib groups there were significant reductions from baseline neutrophil elastase concentrations in sputum, compared with placebo (P = .034 for 10 mg and .021 for 25 mg). During the 4-week period following treatment neutrophil elastase levels in both active drug arms rose rapidly and returned to baseline.

The importance of these reductions was reflected in pooled data from the two brensocatib cohorts, which showed that patients who achieved neutrophil elastase levels below the limit of quantification had a significantly lower incidence of bronchiectasis exacerbations (HR 0.28, P < .0001).

Although the study was not powered to compare changes in postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) levels, placebo-treated patients had a numerically larger decline in lung function from baseline, compared with brensocatib-treated patients.
 

Safety

Expected adverse events with brensocatib included those associated with Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome, a rare congenital condition caused by the absence of the gene coding for DPP1, resulting in keratinization leading to redness, thickening of soles and palms, and severe, destructive periodontal disease, as well as reduced immune response to bacterial infection.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) resulting in study discontinuation occurred in only three patients on placebo and 10 mg brensocatib, and four on the 25-mg dose. TEAEs resulting in treatment discontinuation were more common in the placebo arm, occurring in nine patients compared with six each in the brensocatib arms.

Serious TEAEs occurring in more than 3% of patients in any group included infective exacerbations in three patients on placebo, none on the 10-mg dose, and four on the 25-mg dose of brensocatib. Respective numbers of patients with treatment-emergent pneumonia were three, zero, and four.

Other TEAEs included cough, headache, sputum increase, dyspnea, and diarrhea.

Adverse events of special interest included skin events in 10 patients on placebo, 12 on the 10-mg dose, and 21 on the 25-mg brensocatib dose. Dental changes occurred in 3, 13, and 9 patients, and infections in 9, 12, and 14 patients, respectively.

A phase 3 study to confirm efficacy and establish the optimal dose of brensocatib is planned for the end of 2020, “COVID willing,” Dr. Chalmers said.

Dr. Chalmers disclosed consultancy with and research funding from Insmed, which funded the study. Dr. Taylor-Cousar has disclosed grants and/or personal fees from various companies.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.

Patients with interstitial lung disease–associated pulmonary hypertension who were treated with inhaled treprostinil (Tyvaso) had significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity over 16 weeks, compared with patients who used a placebo inhaler, results of a phase 3 trial showed.

Among 326 patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) associated with interstitial lung disease (ILD), those who were randomly assigned to treatment with treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in 6-minute walk distance of 21 m (P = .004), reported Steven D. Nathan, MD, from Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va., on behalf of coinvestigators in the INCREASE study (NCT02630316).

“These results support an additional treatment avenue, and might herald a shift in the clinical management of patients with interstitial lung disease,” he said in the American Thoracic Society’s virtual clinical trial session.

“This was an outstanding presentation and outstanding results. I personally am very excited, because this is a field where I work,” commented Martin Kolb, MD, PhD, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., the facilitator for the online presentation.

The INCREASE trial compared inhaled treprostinil dose four times daily with placebo in patients with a CT scan–confirmed diagnosis of World Health Organization group 3 PH within 6 months before randomization who had evidence of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. Eligible patients could have any form of ILD or combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

Key inclusion criteria included right-heart catheterization within the previous year with documented pulmonary vascular resistance greater than 3 Wood units, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 15 mm Hg or less, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 25 mm Hg or higher.

Patients also had to have a 6-minute walk distance of at least 100 m and have stable disease while on an optimized dose of medications for underlying lung disease. Patients with group 3 connective tissue disease had to have baseline forced vital capacity of less than 70%.

The final study cohorts included patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, connective tissue disease, combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema, and occupational lung disease.

The patients were randomized to receive either inhaled treprostinil at a starting dose of 6 mcg/breath four times daily or to placebo (163 patients in each arm). All patients started the study drug at a dose of three breaths four times daily during waking hours. Dose escalations – adding 1 additional breath four times daily – were allowed every 3 days, up to a target dose of 9 breaths (54 mcg) four times daily, and a maximum of 12 breaths (72 mcg) four times daily as clinically tolerated.

A total of 130 patients assigned to treprostinil and 128 assigned to placebo completed 16 weeks of therapy and assessment.

As noted before, patients assigned to treprostinil had a placebo-corrected median difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance, as measured by Hodges-Lehmann estimation, of 21 m (P = .004). An analysis of the same parameter using mixed model repeated measurement showed a placebo-corrected difference from baseline in peak 6-minute walk distance of 31.12 m (P < .001).

Secondary endpoints that were significantly better with treprostinil, compared with placebo, included improvements in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a longer time to clinical worsening, and improvements in peak 6-minute walk distance week 12, and trough 6-minute walk distance at week 15.

Treprostinil was associated with a 39% reduction in risk of clinical worsening (P = .04). In all, 37 patients on treprostinil (22.7%) and 54 on placebo (33.1%) experienced clinical worsening.

For the exploratory endpoints of change in patient reported quality of life as measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, or in peak distance saturation product, however, there were no significant differences between the groups.

In addition, treprostinil was associated with a 34% reduction the risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease, compared with placebo (P = .03).

The safety profile of treprostinil was similar to that seen in other studies of the drug, and most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Adverse events led to discontinuation in 10% of patients on treprostinil and 8% on placebo.

Serious adverse events were seen in 23.3% and 25.8%, respectively. The most frequently occurring adverse events of any grade included cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, throat irritation, and oropharyngeal pain.

There was no evidence of worsened oxygenation or lung function “allaying V/Q mismatch concerns,” Dr. Nathan said, and there was evidence for an improvement in forced vital capacity with treprostinil.

In the question-and-answer portion of the presentation, Dr. Kolb commented that many clinicians, particularly those who treated patients with ILD, question whether a 21-m difference in walk distance makes much of a difference in patient lives. He relayed a question from a viewer asking how Dr. Nathan and associates reconciled their primary endpoint with the finding that there was no difference in patient-reported quality of life.

“I think that the difference in the 6-minute walk test was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Nathan replied.

He noted that the primary endpoint used a stringent measure, and that less conservative methods of analysis showed a larger difference in benefit favoring treprostinil. He also pointed out that the original study of inhaled treprostinil added to oral therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension showed a 20-m improvement in walk distance, and that these results were sufficient to get the inhaled formulation approved in the United States (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.027).

Regarding the failure to detect a difference in quality of life, he said that the study was only 16 weeks in length, and that the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was developed for evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, “perhaps not the best instrument to use in an ILD PH study.”

The study was funded by United Therapeutics. Dr. Nathan disclosed advisory committee activity/consulting, research support, and speaker fees from the company. Dr. Kolb has previously disclosed financial relationships with various companies, not including United Therapeutics.

Clinicians shouldn’t rely on pulmonary function tests (PFTs) alone to screen for interstitial lung disease (ILD). The tests performed poorly in a retrospective study of 212 patients with systemic sclerosis, reinforcing the findings of previous studies.

Any screening algorithm should include high-resolution CT (HRCT), which is good at prognosticating disease, the investigators wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “I think all newly diagnosed systemic sclerosis patients should have a full set of PFTs (spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity) and an HRCT at baseline to evaluate for ILD,” the study’s lead author, Elana J. Bernstein, MD, said in an interview.

ILD is a leading cause of death in systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients, affecting 40%-60% of those with the disease. HRCT is currently the preferred option for detection of ILD. PFTs are commonly used to screen for ILD but haven’t performed well in previous studies. “Someone can have abnormalities on HRCT that are consistent with ILD but still have PFTs that are in the ‘normal’ range,” explained Dr. Bernstein of Columbia University, New York. One cross-sectional study of 102 SSc patients found that the test’s sensitivity for the detection of ILD on HRCT was just 37.5% when forced vital capacity (FVC) <80% predicted.

Investigators sought to assess performance characteristics of PFTs in patients with early diffuse cutaneous SSc, a cohort at high risk of developing ILD. The study enlisted patients from the Prospective Registry of Early Systemic Sclerosis (PRESS), a multicenter, prospective cohort study of adults with early diffuse cutaneous SSc. Overall, 212 patients at 11 U.S. academic medical centers participated in the study from April 2012 to January 2019.

All patients had spirometry (PFT) and HRCT chest scans. PFTs were conducted per American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines. The investigators calculated test characteristics for single PFT and combinations of PFT parameters for the detection of ILD on HRCT. The HRCTs were ordered at the discretion of treating physicians, and scrutinized for ILD features such as reticular changes, honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, and ground-glass opacities. The investigators defined the lower limit of normal for FVC, total lung capacity, and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) as 80% predicted.

Overall, Dr. Bernstein and her colleagues found that PFTs lacked sufficient sensitivity and negative predictive value for the detection of ILD on HRCT in these patients.

An FVC <80% predicted performed at only 63% sensitivity and an false negative rate of 37%. Total lung capacity or DLCO <80% predicted had a sensitivity of 46% and 80%, respectively. The combination of FVC or DLCO <80% predicted raised sensitivity to 85%. However, the addition of total lung capacity to this combination did not improve results.

Overall, PFTs had a positive predictive value of 64%-74% and an negative predictive value of 61%-70%. “This means that PFT alone will not accurately predict the presence of ILD in about 35%, and not be correctly negative in about 35%,” observed Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, and professor of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

While the combination of FVC <80% predicted or DLCO <80% predicted performed better than the other parameters, the sensitivity “is inadequate for an ILD screening test as it results in an false negative rate of 15%, thereby falsely reassuring 15% of patients that they do not have ILD when in fact they do,” the investigators observed.

“This study reinforces the notion that PFTs alone are ineffective screening tools for ILD in the presence of systemic sclerosis, particularly for patients with early systemic sclerosis,” said Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, MS, assistant professor and codirector of the CTD-ILD program in the division of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The study’s scope was relatively small, yet the results provide further evidence to show that HRCT should be performed in all SSc patients to screen for the presence of ILD, Dr. Volkmann said in an interview.

Other research has demonstrated the value of baseline HRCT as a prognosticator of ILD outcomes. The method provides useful information about the degree of fibrosis and degree of damage in early-stage disease, said Dr. Furst, also an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). “If there’s honeycombing, that’s a bad prognosis. If it’s ground glass or reticular changes, the prognosis is better.

“Once there’s a lot of damage, it’s much harder to interpret disease with HRCT,” he added.

HRCT and PFT work well together to assess what’s happening in patients, Dr. Furst explained. HRCT provides an idea of anatomic changes, whereas PFT outlines aspects of functional change to diagnose early ILD in early diffuse SSc. The study results should not apply to patients with later disease who have more developed ILD, he noted.

The investigators acknowledged that they weren’t able to categorize and analyze patients according to disease extent because they didn’t quantify the extent of ILD. Another limitation was that the HRCTs and PFTs were ordered at the discretion of individual physicians, which means that not all participants received the tests.

“Although the tests were done in 90% of the population, there is still a probability of a significant selection bias,” Dr. Furst said.

Dr. Bernstein and several other coauthors in the study received grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to support their work. Dr. Furst disclosed receiving grant/research support from and/or consulting for AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corbus, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for and/or receiving grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, and Forbius.

SOURCE: Bernstein EJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1002/art.41415.

Clinicians shouldn’t rely on pulmonary function tests (PFTs) alone to screen for interstitial lung disease (ILD). The tests performed poorly in a retrospective study of 212 patients with systemic sclerosis, reinforcing the findings of previous studies.

Any screening algorithm should include high-resolution CT (HRCT), which is good at prognosticating disease, the investigators wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “I think all newly diagnosed systemic sclerosis patients should have a full set of PFTs (spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity) and an HRCT at baseline to evaluate for ILD,” the study’s lead author, Elana J. Bernstein, MD, said in an interview.

ILD is a leading cause of death in systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients, affecting 40%-60% of those with the disease. HRCT is currently the preferred option for detection of ILD. PFTs are commonly used to screen for ILD but haven’t performed well in previous studies. “Someone can have abnormalities on HRCT that are consistent with ILD but still have PFTs that are in the ‘normal’ range,” explained Dr. Bernstein of Columbia University, New York. One cross-sectional study of 102 SSc patients found that the test’s sensitivity for the detection of ILD on HRCT was just 37.5% when forced vital capacity (FVC) <80% predicted.

Investigators sought to assess performance characteristics of PFTs in patients with early diffuse cutaneous SSc, a cohort at high risk of developing ILD. The study enlisted patients from the Prospective Registry of Early Systemic Sclerosis (PRESS), a multicenter, prospective cohort study of adults with early diffuse cutaneous SSc. Overall, 212 patients at 11 U.S. academic medical centers participated in the study from April 2012 to January 2019.

All patients had spirometry (PFT) and HRCT chest scans. PFTs were conducted per American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines. The investigators calculated test characteristics for single PFT and combinations of PFT parameters for the detection of ILD on HRCT. The HRCTs were ordered at the discretion of treating physicians, and scrutinized for ILD features such as reticular changes, honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, and ground-glass opacities. The investigators defined the lower limit of normal for FVC, total lung capacity, and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) as 80% predicted.

Overall, Dr. Bernstein and her colleagues found that PFTs lacked sufficient sensitivity and negative predictive value for the detection of ILD on HRCT in these patients.

An FVC <80% predicted performed at only 63% sensitivity and an false negative rate of 37%. Total lung capacity or DLCO <80% predicted had a sensitivity of 46% and 80%, respectively. The combination of FVC or DLCO <80% predicted raised sensitivity to 85%. However, the addition of total lung capacity to this combination did not improve results.

Overall, PFTs had a positive predictive value of 64%-74% and an negative predictive value of 61%-70%. “This means that PFT alone will not accurately predict the presence of ILD in about 35%, and not be correctly negative in about 35%,” observed Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, and professor of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

While the combination of FVC <80% predicted or DLCO <80% predicted performed better than the other parameters, the sensitivity “is inadequate for an ILD screening test as it results in an false negative rate of 15%, thereby falsely reassuring 15% of patients that they do not have ILD when in fact they do,” the investigators observed.

“This study reinforces the notion that PFTs alone are ineffective screening tools for ILD in the presence of systemic sclerosis, particularly for patients with early systemic sclerosis,” said Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, MS, assistant professor and codirector of the CTD-ILD program in the division of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The study’s scope was relatively small, yet the results provide further evidence to show that HRCT should be performed in all SSc patients to screen for the presence of ILD, Dr. Volkmann said in an interview.

Other research has demonstrated the value of baseline HRCT as a prognosticator of ILD outcomes. The method provides useful information about the degree of fibrosis and degree of damage in early-stage disease, said Dr. Furst, also an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). “If there’s honeycombing, that’s a bad prognosis. If it’s ground glass or reticular changes, the prognosis is better.

“Once there’s a lot of damage, it’s much harder to interpret disease with HRCT,” he added.

HRCT and PFT work well together to assess what’s happening in patients, Dr. Furst explained. HRCT provides an idea of anatomic changes, whereas PFT outlines aspects of functional change to diagnose early ILD in early diffuse SSc. The study results should not apply to patients with later disease who have more developed ILD, he noted.

The investigators acknowledged that they weren’t able to categorize and analyze patients according to disease extent because they didn’t quantify the extent of ILD. Another limitation was that the HRCTs and PFTs were ordered at the discretion of individual physicians, which means that not all participants received the tests.

“Although the tests were done in 90% of the population, there is still a probability of a significant selection bias,” Dr. Furst said.

Dr. Bernstein and several other coauthors in the study received grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to support their work. Dr. Furst disclosed receiving grant/research support from and/or consulting for AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corbus, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for and/or receiving grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, and Forbius.

SOURCE: Bernstein EJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1002/art.41415.

Clinicians shouldn’t rely on pulmonary function tests (PFTs) alone to screen for interstitial lung disease (ILD). The tests performed poorly in a retrospective study of 212 patients with systemic sclerosis, reinforcing the findings of previous studies.

Any screening algorithm should include high-resolution CT (HRCT), which is good at prognosticating disease, the investigators wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “I think all newly diagnosed systemic sclerosis patients should have a full set of PFTs (spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity) and an HRCT at baseline to evaluate for ILD,” the study’s lead author, Elana J. Bernstein, MD, said in an interview.

ILD is a leading cause of death in systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients, affecting 40%-60% of those with the disease. HRCT is currently the preferred option for detection of ILD. PFTs are commonly used to screen for ILD but haven’t performed well in previous studies. “Someone can have abnormalities on HRCT that are consistent with ILD but still have PFTs that are in the ‘normal’ range,” explained Dr. Bernstein of Columbia University, New York. One cross-sectional study of 102 SSc patients found that the test’s sensitivity for the detection of ILD on HRCT was just 37.5% when forced vital capacity (FVC) <80% predicted.

Investigators sought to assess performance characteristics of PFTs in patients with early diffuse cutaneous SSc, a cohort at high risk of developing ILD. The study enlisted patients from the Prospective Registry of Early Systemic Sclerosis (PRESS), a multicenter, prospective cohort study of adults with early diffuse cutaneous SSc. Overall, 212 patients at 11 U.S. academic medical centers participated in the study from April 2012 to January 2019.

All patients had spirometry (PFT) and HRCT chest scans. PFTs were conducted per American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines. The investigators calculated test characteristics for single PFT and combinations of PFT parameters for the detection of ILD on HRCT. The HRCTs were ordered at the discretion of treating physicians, and scrutinized for ILD features such as reticular changes, honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, and ground-glass opacities. The investigators defined the lower limit of normal for FVC, total lung capacity, and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) as 80% predicted.

Overall, Dr. Bernstein and her colleagues found that PFTs lacked sufficient sensitivity and negative predictive value for the detection of ILD on HRCT in these patients.

An FVC <80% predicted performed at only 63% sensitivity and an false negative rate of 37%. Total lung capacity or DLCO <80% predicted had a sensitivity of 46% and 80%, respectively. The combination of FVC or DLCO <80% predicted raised sensitivity to 85%. However, the addition of total lung capacity to this combination did not improve results.

Overall, PFTs had a positive predictive value of 64%-74% and an negative predictive value of 61%-70%. “This means that PFT alone will not accurately predict the presence of ILD in about 35%, and not be correctly negative in about 35%,” observed Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, and professor of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

While the combination of FVC <80% predicted or DLCO <80% predicted performed better than the other parameters, the sensitivity “is inadequate for an ILD screening test as it results in an false negative rate of 15%, thereby falsely reassuring 15% of patients that they do not have ILD when in fact they do,” the investigators observed.

“This study reinforces the notion that PFTs alone are ineffective screening tools for ILD in the presence of systemic sclerosis, particularly for patients with early systemic sclerosis,” said Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, MS, assistant professor and codirector of the CTD-ILD program in the division of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The study’s scope was relatively small, yet the results provide further evidence to show that HRCT should be performed in all SSc patients to screen for the presence of ILD, Dr. Volkmann said in an interview.

Other research has demonstrated the value of baseline HRCT as a prognosticator of ILD outcomes. The method provides useful information about the degree of fibrosis and degree of damage in early-stage disease, said Dr. Furst, also an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). “If there’s honeycombing, that’s a bad prognosis. If it’s ground glass or reticular changes, the prognosis is better.

“Once there’s a lot of damage, it’s much harder to interpret disease with HRCT,” he added.

HRCT and PFT work well together to assess what’s happening in patients, Dr. Furst explained. HRCT provides an idea of anatomic changes, whereas PFT outlines aspects of functional change to diagnose early ILD in early diffuse SSc. The study results should not apply to patients with later disease who have more developed ILD, he noted.

The investigators acknowledged that they weren’t able to categorize and analyze patients according to disease extent because they didn’t quantify the extent of ILD. Another limitation was that the HRCTs and PFTs were ordered at the discretion of individual physicians, which means that not all participants received the tests.

“Although the tests were done in 90% of the population, there is still a probability of a significant selection bias,” Dr. Furst said.

Dr. Bernstein and several other coauthors in the study received grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to support their work. Dr. Furst disclosed receiving grant/research support from and/or consulting for AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corbus, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for and/or receiving grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, and Forbius.

SOURCE: Bernstein EJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1002/art.41415.