CHEST Physician

CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).

This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.

A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Understanding and preventing this side effect of novel treatments could help patients for whom such medications are effective avoid the need to stop using them prematurely.
 

Combination therapies

Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.

The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.

The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
 

Increased thrombosis risk

The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.

The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.

The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).

At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”

In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”

Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
 

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

CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).

This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.

A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Understanding and preventing this side effect of novel treatments could help patients for whom such medications are effective avoid the need to stop using them prematurely.
 

Combination therapies

Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.

The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.

The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
 

Increased thrombosis risk

The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.

The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.

The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).

At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”

In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”

Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
 

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

CHICAGO – Having cancer is a known risk factor for thrombosis. A patient with cancer has a fourfold risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE).

This risk may be increased by certain cancer drugs, which seems to be the case for the combination of innovative targeted therapies lazertinib-amivantamab, as shown in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer.

A study of this increased risk of VTE was presented by Nicolas Girard, MD, a respiratory medicine specialist at Curie-Montsouris Chest Center in Paris, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Understanding and preventing this side effect of novel treatments could help patients for whom such medications are effective avoid the need to stop using them prematurely.
 

Combination therapies

Amivantamab is an EGFR and cMET bispecific antibody, and lazertinib is a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Prescribed after osimertinib or after osimertinib plus chemotherapy, this combination of amivantamab and lazertinib has been evaluated in several cohorts of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer in whom targeted therapy and chemotherapy has failed.

The antitumor activity appears to be improved when both therapies are given in combination. The side effects generally are acceptable. It is these side effects, particularly the rate of VTEs, that Dr. Girard and his colleagues are interested in.

The researchers collated the data from the ongoing CHRYSALIS, CHRYSALIS-2, and LASER201 clinical trials, which assess the efficacy of these new agents as monotherapy or in combination. They initially investigated all reported thrombotic events and ruled out those that occurred during or after the 30 days before disease progression.
 

Increased thrombosis risk

The analysis included 560 patients who had been given amivantamab as monotherapy, 536 patients who had received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination, and 252 who had taken lazertinib as monotherapy. The incidence of thromboembolic events was higher among patients who received amivantamab plus lazertinib in combination (21%) than in those who were given amivantamab (11%) or lazertinib (11%) as monotherapy.

The first thromboembolic event occurred an average of 84.5 days after starting treatment with amivantamab, 79 days after starting the combination therapy, and 170 days after starting treatment with lazertinib. For the amivantamab plus lazertinib combination, most VTEs developed in the first 4 months of treatment. The most common VTEs were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The incidence of severe thrombotic events (grade ≥ 3), which was relatively low (amivantamab, 5%; amivantamab plus lazertinib, 6%; lazertinib, 6%) was similar regardless of the treatment, and there were no grade 5 thrombotic events among patients treated with the combination of both targeted therapies.

The significant risk factors for VTEs identified in this study were being age 60 years or older, having a score of 1 on the ECOG Performance Status Scale, and response to treatment (P < .05).

At a press conference organized by the Institut Curie before the ASCO conference, Dr. Girard said, “There has been shown to be an increased risk of blood clots with the use of this combination of targeted therapies. Preventive measures should therefore also be put forward, such as adding anticoagulant medication. This is an important study for the further development of these therapies.”

In a press release, the respiratory medicine specialist noted, “Institut Curie is particularly alert to the issue of the risk of thrombosis arising in cancer patients.” The DASTO project, dedicated to this issue and headed by the Institut Curie, “aims to cross-reference data sourced from several French cancer centers with data from the social security system to understand the risk factors, improve patient treatment, make changes to the care pathway, and prevent this unwanted occurrence from arising.”

Dr. Girard has direct links with Amgen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Ipsen, Janssen, Roche, Lilly, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, OSE Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sivan.
 

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

Only 12.8% of eligible adults get CT screening for lung cancer, despite recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kristin G. Maki, PhD, with Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, led a team that estimated lung cancer screening (LCS) from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in four states (Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island).

“Increasing LCS among eligible adults is a national priority,” the authors wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. Lung cancer remains the top cause of cancer in the United States and smoking accounts for approximately 90% of cases.
 

Screening much higher for other cancers

The authors pointed out that screening rates for eligible people are much higher for other cancers. Melzer and colleagues wrote in a 2021 editorial that breast and colon cancer screening rates are near 70% “despite combined annual death rates less than two-thirds that of lung cancer.”

The USPSTF updated its recommendations for lung cancer screening in March 2021.

Eligibility now includes anyone aged between 50 and 80 years who has smoked at least 20 pack-years and either still smokes or quit within the last 15 years.

The researchers found that, when comparing screening by health status, the highest odds for screening were seen in those who reported they were in poor health, which is concerning, the authors note, because those patients may not be healthy enough to benefit from treatment for their lung cancer.

The odds ratio for getting screening was 2.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-9.77) times higher than that of the reference group, which reported excellent health.
 

Rates differ by state

Consistent with previous studies, this analysis found that screening rates differed by state. Their analysis, for example, showed a higher likelihood of screening for respondents in Rhode Island, compared with Maine (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.05-3.67; P = .03).

Patients who reported having a primary health professional were more than five times more likely to undergo screening, compared with those without one (OR, 5.62; 95% CI, 1.19-26.49).

The authors said their results also highlight the need for Medicare coverage for screening as those with public insurance had lower odds of screening than those with private insurance (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.56).

Neelima Navuluri, MD, assistant professor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care at Duke University and the Duke Global Health Institute, both in Durham, N.C., pointed out that the study highlights age, smoking status, and health care access as key factors associated with lack of uptake.
 

Work needed on all levels

Dr. Navuluri said in an interview that multifaceted patient-, provider- and system-level interventions are needed to improve screening rates.

“For example, we need more community engagement to increase knowledge and awareness of eligibility for lung cancer screening,” she said.

She highlighted the need for interventions around improving and streamlining shared decision-making conversations about screening (a CMS requirement that does not exist for other cancer screening).

Emphasis is needed on younger age groups, people who currently smoke, and communities of color as well as policy to improve insurance coverage of screening, she said.

Dr. Navuluri, who also works with the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, was lead author on a study published in JAMA Network Open on racial disparities in screening among veterans.

“We demonstrate similar findings related to age, smoking status, and poor health status,” she said. “We discuss the need for more qualitative studies to better understand the role of these factors as well as implementation studies to assess effectiveness of various interventions to improve disparities in lung cancer screening rates.”

“Research to identify facilitators for LCS among persons who currently smoke is needed, including a focus on the role of stigma as a barrier to screening,” they wrote.

One coauthor is supported by the cancer prevention and research training program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Navuluri receives funding from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for work on lung cancer screening.

Only 12.8% of eligible adults get CT screening for lung cancer, despite recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kristin G. Maki, PhD, with Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, led a team that estimated lung cancer screening (LCS) from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in four states (Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island).

“Increasing LCS among eligible adults is a national priority,” the authors wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. Lung cancer remains the top cause of cancer in the United States and smoking accounts for approximately 90% of cases.
 

Screening much higher for other cancers

The authors pointed out that screening rates for eligible people are much higher for other cancers. Melzer and colleagues wrote in a 2021 editorial that breast and colon cancer screening rates are near 70% “despite combined annual death rates less than two-thirds that of lung cancer.”

The USPSTF updated its recommendations for lung cancer screening in March 2021.

Eligibility now includes anyone aged between 50 and 80 years who has smoked at least 20 pack-years and either still smokes or quit within the last 15 years.

The researchers found that, when comparing screening by health status, the highest odds for screening were seen in those who reported they were in poor health, which is concerning, the authors note, because those patients may not be healthy enough to benefit from treatment for their lung cancer.

The odds ratio for getting screening was 2.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-9.77) times higher than that of the reference group, which reported excellent health.
 

Rates differ by state

Consistent with previous studies, this analysis found that screening rates differed by state. Their analysis, for example, showed a higher likelihood of screening for respondents in Rhode Island, compared with Maine (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.05-3.67; P = .03).

Patients who reported having a primary health professional were more than five times more likely to undergo screening, compared with those without one (OR, 5.62; 95% CI, 1.19-26.49).

The authors said their results also highlight the need for Medicare coverage for screening as those with public insurance had lower odds of screening than those with private insurance (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.56).

Neelima Navuluri, MD, assistant professor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care at Duke University and the Duke Global Health Institute, both in Durham, N.C., pointed out that the study highlights age, smoking status, and health care access as key factors associated with lack of uptake.
 

Work needed on all levels

Dr. Navuluri said in an interview that multifaceted patient-, provider- and system-level interventions are needed to improve screening rates.

“For example, we need more community engagement to increase knowledge and awareness of eligibility for lung cancer screening,” she said.

She highlighted the need for interventions around improving and streamlining shared decision-making conversations about screening (a CMS requirement that does not exist for other cancer screening).

Emphasis is needed on younger age groups, people who currently smoke, and communities of color as well as policy to improve insurance coverage of screening, she said.

Dr. Navuluri, who also works with the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, was lead author on a study published in JAMA Network Open on racial disparities in screening among veterans.

“We demonstrate similar findings related to age, smoking status, and poor health status,” she said. “We discuss the need for more qualitative studies to better understand the role of these factors as well as implementation studies to assess effectiveness of various interventions to improve disparities in lung cancer screening rates.”

“Research to identify facilitators for LCS among persons who currently smoke is needed, including a focus on the role of stigma as a barrier to screening,” they wrote.

One coauthor is supported by the cancer prevention and research training program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Navuluri receives funding from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for work on lung cancer screening.

Only 12.8% of eligible adults get CT screening for lung cancer, despite recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Kristin G. Maki, PhD, with Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, led a team that estimated lung cancer screening (LCS) from the 2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in four states (Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island).

“Increasing LCS among eligible adults is a national priority,” the authors wrote in the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. Lung cancer remains the top cause of cancer in the United States and smoking accounts for approximately 90% of cases.
 

Screening much higher for other cancers

The authors pointed out that screening rates for eligible people are much higher for other cancers. Melzer and colleagues wrote in a 2021 editorial that breast and colon cancer screening rates are near 70% “despite combined annual death rates less than two-thirds that of lung cancer.”

The USPSTF updated its recommendations for lung cancer screening in March 2021.

Eligibility now includes anyone aged between 50 and 80 years who has smoked at least 20 pack-years and either still smokes or quit within the last 15 years.

The researchers found that, when comparing screening by health status, the highest odds for screening were seen in those who reported they were in poor health, which is concerning, the authors note, because those patients may not be healthy enough to benefit from treatment for their lung cancer.

The odds ratio for getting screening was 2.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-9.77) times higher than that of the reference group, which reported excellent health.
 

Rates differ by state

Consistent with previous studies, this analysis found that screening rates differed by state. Their analysis, for example, showed a higher likelihood of screening for respondents in Rhode Island, compared with Maine (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.05-3.67; P = .03).

Patients who reported having a primary health professional were more than five times more likely to undergo screening, compared with those without one (OR, 5.62; 95% CI, 1.19-26.49).

The authors said their results also highlight the need for Medicare coverage for screening as those with public insurance had lower odds of screening than those with private insurance (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.56).

Neelima Navuluri, MD, assistant professor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care at Duke University and the Duke Global Health Institute, both in Durham, N.C., pointed out that the study highlights age, smoking status, and health care access as key factors associated with lack of uptake.
 

Work needed on all levels

Dr. Navuluri said in an interview that multifaceted patient-, provider- and system-level interventions are needed to improve screening rates.

“For example, we need more community engagement to increase knowledge and awareness of eligibility for lung cancer screening,” she said.

She highlighted the need for interventions around improving and streamlining shared decision-making conversations about screening (a CMS requirement that does not exist for other cancer screening).

Emphasis is needed on younger age groups, people who currently smoke, and communities of color as well as policy to improve insurance coverage of screening, she said.

Dr. Navuluri, who also works with the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, was lead author on a study published in JAMA Network Open on racial disparities in screening among veterans.

“We demonstrate similar findings related to age, smoking status, and poor health status,” she said. “We discuss the need for more qualitative studies to better understand the role of these factors as well as implementation studies to assess effectiveness of various interventions to improve disparities in lung cancer screening rates.”

“Research to identify facilitators for LCS among persons who currently smoke is needed, including a focus on the role of stigma as a barrier to screening,” they wrote.

One coauthor is supported by the cancer prevention and research training program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Navuluri receives funding from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for work on lung cancer screening.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

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

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

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

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

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

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

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

Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.

Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

‘Stark differences’

In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.

“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.

For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.

They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.

Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.

Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.

Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).

Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.

Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.

“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.

Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.

People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
 

Quantity and quality matter

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”

Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”

As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.

He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.

“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.

“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.

The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.

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

Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.

Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

‘Stark differences’

In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.

“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.

For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.

They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.

Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.

Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.

Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).

Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.

Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.

“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.

Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.

People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
 

Quantity and quality matter

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”

Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”

As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.

He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.

“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.

“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.

The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.

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

Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.

Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

‘Stark differences’

In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.

“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.

For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.

They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.

Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.

Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.

Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).

Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.

Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.

“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.

Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.

People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
 

Quantity and quality matter

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”

Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”

As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.

He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.

“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.

“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.

The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.

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

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.

The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown. Symptom improvement following rehabilitation programs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in cardiac diseases is well documented, however, but evidence in the post–pulmonary embolism setting is limited.

The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.

Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.

Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.

“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.

The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.

Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”

The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.

The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown. Symptom improvement following rehabilitation programs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in cardiac diseases is well documented, however, but evidence in the post–pulmonary embolism setting is limited.

The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.

Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.

Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.

“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.

The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.

Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”

The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.

The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown. Symptom improvement following rehabilitation programs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and in cardiac diseases is well documented, however, but evidence in the post–pulmonary embolism setting is limited.

The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.

Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.

Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.

“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.

The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.

Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”

The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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