CHEST Physician

Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

The recently published STELLAR trial was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate patients with PAH receiving stable vasodilator therapy after treatment with sotatercept, a first-in-class recombinant fusion protein with parts of the activin receptor type IIA, a member of the BMPR2/TGF-beta superfamily of receptors and ligands (Hoeper. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1478).

Sotatercept improved 6-minute walk distance, the primary endpoint of the trial at 24-weeks, as well as eight of the trial’s nine secondary endpoints including changes in PVR, NT-ProBNP levels, functional class, French risk score, and time-to-clinical worsening when compared with placebo. However, many questions remain about the mechanisms whereby sotatercept achieved its clinical endpoints, the answers to which may lie within its basic molecular biology.

The focus on BMPR2/TGF-beta cell signaling pathways originated from the identification of loss-of-function mutations in the BMPR2 gene in patients with heritable and idiopathic PAH (Morrell, NW. Eur Respir J. 2019;53[3]: 1900078). An imbalance in BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling (low BMPR2/high TGF-beta function) has been proposed as a central mechanism in the development of PAH. Specifically, researchers have shown increased levels of Activin A, one of 33 ligands that can bind either BMPR2 or TGF-beta receptors, within vascular lesions in the lungs of patients with PAH. It has been thus hypothesized that reducing the amount of circulating Activin A could treat PAH by rebalancing BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling in lung vascular cells. In preclinical experimental models of PAH with elevated Activin A levels, sotatercept has been shown to reduce distal small vessel medial thickness/muscularization and increase the number of patent small vessels (Yung, LM. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12).

The exact mechanism by which sotatercept improves hemodynamics and outcomes remains unclear. Indeed, whether de-remodeling of the lung vasculature or new vessel formation occurs in humans is unknown. The results from STELLAR mark a new era in the development of potential “disease-modifying agents” for PAH; however, the question is: what exactly are we modifying?

Jose Gomez-Arroyo, MD, PhD – Section Fellow-in-Training
Dana Kay, DO – Section Member-at-Large

Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

The recently published STELLAR trial was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate patients with PAH receiving stable vasodilator therapy after treatment with sotatercept, a first-in-class recombinant fusion protein with parts of the activin receptor type IIA, a member of the BMPR2/TGF-beta superfamily of receptors and ligands (Hoeper. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1478).

Sotatercept improved 6-minute walk distance, the primary endpoint of the trial at 24-weeks, as well as eight of the trial’s nine secondary endpoints including changes in PVR, NT-ProBNP levels, functional class, French risk score, and time-to-clinical worsening when compared with placebo. However, many questions remain about the mechanisms whereby sotatercept achieved its clinical endpoints, the answers to which may lie within its basic molecular biology.

The focus on BMPR2/TGF-beta cell signaling pathways originated from the identification of loss-of-function mutations in the BMPR2 gene in patients with heritable and idiopathic PAH (Morrell, NW. Eur Respir J. 2019;53[3]: 1900078). An imbalance in BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling (low BMPR2/high TGF-beta function) has been proposed as a central mechanism in the development of PAH. Specifically, researchers have shown increased levels of Activin A, one of 33 ligands that can bind either BMPR2 or TGF-beta receptors, within vascular lesions in the lungs of patients with PAH. It has been thus hypothesized that reducing the amount of circulating Activin A could treat PAH by rebalancing BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling in lung vascular cells. In preclinical experimental models of PAH with elevated Activin A levels, sotatercept has been shown to reduce distal small vessel medial thickness/muscularization and increase the number of patent small vessels (Yung, LM. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12).

The exact mechanism by which sotatercept improves hemodynamics and outcomes remains unclear. Indeed, whether de-remodeling of the lung vasculature or new vessel formation occurs in humans is unknown. The results from STELLAR mark a new era in the development of potential “disease-modifying agents” for PAH; however, the question is: what exactly are we modifying?

Jose Gomez-Arroyo, MD, PhD – Section Fellow-in-Training
Dana Kay, DO – Section Member-at-Large

Pulmonary Vascular & Cardiovascular Network

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

The recently published STELLAR trial was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate patients with PAH receiving stable vasodilator therapy after treatment with sotatercept, a first-in-class recombinant fusion protein with parts of the activin receptor type IIA, a member of the BMPR2/TGF-beta superfamily of receptors and ligands (Hoeper. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1478).

Sotatercept improved 6-minute walk distance, the primary endpoint of the trial at 24-weeks, as well as eight of the trial’s nine secondary endpoints including changes in PVR, NT-ProBNP levels, functional class, French risk score, and time-to-clinical worsening when compared with placebo. However, many questions remain about the mechanisms whereby sotatercept achieved its clinical endpoints, the answers to which may lie within its basic molecular biology.

The focus on BMPR2/TGF-beta cell signaling pathways originated from the identification of loss-of-function mutations in the BMPR2 gene in patients with heritable and idiopathic PAH (Morrell, NW. Eur Respir J. 2019;53[3]: 1900078). An imbalance in BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling (low BMPR2/high TGF-beta function) has been proposed as a central mechanism in the development of PAH. Specifically, researchers have shown increased levels of Activin A, one of 33 ligands that can bind either BMPR2 or TGF-beta receptors, within vascular lesions in the lungs of patients with PAH. It has been thus hypothesized that reducing the amount of circulating Activin A could treat PAH by rebalancing BMPR2/TGF-beta signaling in lung vascular cells. In preclinical experimental models of PAH with elevated Activin A levels, sotatercept has been shown to reduce distal small vessel medial thickness/muscularization and increase the number of patent small vessels (Yung, LM. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12).

The exact mechanism by which sotatercept improves hemodynamics and outcomes remains unclear. Indeed, whether de-remodeling of the lung vasculature or new vessel formation occurs in humans is unknown. The results from STELLAR mark a new era in the development of potential “disease-modifying agents” for PAH; however, the question is: what exactly are we modifying?

Jose Gomez-Arroyo, MD, PhD – Section Fellow-in-Training
Dana Kay, DO – Section Member-at-Large

CHEST INFECTIONS & DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK

Chest Infections Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an underappreciated cause of hospital admission in adult patients, especially among those who have underlying cardiopulmonary comorbidities (Branche AR, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74[6]:1004). A meta-analysis estimated an annual incidence rate of 37.6 per 1000 persons per year with a hospital case fatality rate of 11.7% (5.8%-23.4%) in industrialized countries (Shi T, et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226 [suppl 1]).

Recent work showed RSV to be quite pathogenic in adults (Begley KM, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2023:ciad031). In 10,311 hospitalized adults with an acute respiratory illness, 6% tested positive for RSV and 18.8% for influenza virus. Compared with influenza virus, patients infected with RSV were more likely to have COPD or CHF and had longer admission and more requirements for mechanical ventilation.

There have been new advances in the prevention of RSV-associated illness. Nirsevimab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that locks the RSV F protein in prefusion stage, had an efficacy of 74.5% in preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in infants up to 150 days, which is an improvement over palivizumab (Bergeron HC, et al. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2022;31 [No. 1]: 23). The FDA advisory committee just approved two RSV vaccines, both of which target prefusion F protein, for elderly adults. The RSVPreF3OA had 82.6% efficacy against LRTI in adults over 60 years of age (Papi A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:595) and Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine had 80% efficacy in adults over 65 years of age (Falsey AR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:609).

Shekhar Ghamande, MD, MBBS, FCCP – Section Member-at-Large

Paige Marty, MD – Section Fellow-in-Training

CHEST INFECTIONS & DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK

Chest Infections Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an underappreciated cause of hospital admission in adult patients, especially among those who have underlying cardiopulmonary comorbidities (Branche AR, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74[6]:1004). A meta-analysis estimated an annual incidence rate of 37.6 per 1000 persons per year with a hospital case fatality rate of 11.7% (5.8%-23.4%) in industrialized countries (Shi T, et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226 [suppl 1]).

Recent work showed RSV to be quite pathogenic in adults (Begley KM, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2023:ciad031). In 10,311 hospitalized adults with an acute respiratory illness, 6% tested positive for RSV and 18.8% for influenza virus. Compared with influenza virus, patients infected with RSV were more likely to have COPD or CHF and had longer admission and more requirements for mechanical ventilation.

There have been new advances in the prevention of RSV-associated illness. Nirsevimab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that locks the RSV F protein in prefusion stage, had an efficacy of 74.5% in preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in infants up to 150 days, which is an improvement over palivizumab (Bergeron HC, et al. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2022;31 [No. 1]: 23). The FDA advisory committee just approved two RSV vaccines, both of which target prefusion F protein, for elderly adults. The RSVPreF3OA had 82.6% efficacy against LRTI in adults over 60 years of age (Papi A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:595) and Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine had 80% efficacy in adults over 65 years of age (Falsey AR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:609).

Shekhar Ghamande, MD, MBBS, FCCP – Section Member-at-Large

Paige Marty, MD – Section Fellow-in-Training

CHEST INFECTIONS & DISASTER RESPONSE NETWORK

Chest Infections Section

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an underappreciated cause of hospital admission in adult patients, especially among those who have underlying cardiopulmonary comorbidities (Branche AR, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74[6]:1004). A meta-analysis estimated an annual incidence rate of 37.6 per 1000 persons per year with a hospital case fatality rate of 11.7% (5.8%-23.4%) in industrialized countries (Shi T, et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226 [suppl 1]).

Recent work showed RSV to be quite pathogenic in adults (Begley KM, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2023:ciad031). In 10,311 hospitalized adults with an acute respiratory illness, 6% tested positive for RSV and 18.8% for influenza virus. Compared with influenza virus, patients infected with RSV were more likely to have COPD or CHF and had longer admission and more requirements for mechanical ventilation.

There have been new advances in the prevention of RSV-associated illness. Nirsevimab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody that locks the RSV F protein in prefusion stage, had an efficacy of 74.5% in preventing RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in infants up to 150 days, which is an improvement over palivizumab (Bergeron HC, et al. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2022;31 [No. 1]: 23). The FDA advisory committee just approved two RSV vaccines, both of which target prefusion F protein, for elderly adults. The RSVPreF3OA had 82.6% efficacy against LRTI in adults over 60 years of age (Papi A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:595) and Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine had 80% efficacy in adults over 65 years of age (Falsey AR, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:609).

Shekhar Ghamande, MD, MBBS, FCCP – Section Member-at-Large

Paige Marty, MD – Section Fellow-in-Training

Unexplained dyspnea is a common complaint among patients seen in pulmonary clinics, and can be difficult to define, quantify, and determine the etiology. The ATS official statement defined dyspnea as “a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that consists of qualitatively distinct sensations that vary in intensity” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185:435). A myriad of diseases can cause dyspnea, including cardiac, pulmonary, neuromuscular, psychological, and hematologic disorders; obesity, deconditioning, and the normal aging process may also contribute to dyspnea. Adding further diagnostic confusion, multiple causes may exist in a given patient.

Finding the cause or causes of dyspnea can be difficult and may require extensive testing, time, and cost. Initially, a history and physical exam are performed with more focused testing undertaken depending on most likely causes. For most patients, initial evaluation includes a CBC, TSH, pulmonary function tests, chest radiograph, and, often, a transthoracic echocardiogram. If these tests are unrevealing, or if clinical suspicion is high, more costly, invasive, and time-consuming tests are obtained. These may include bronchoprovocation testing, cardiac stress tests, chest CT scan, and, if warranted, right- and/or left-sided heart catheterization. Ideally, these tests are utilized appropriately based on the patient’s clinical presentation and the results of initial evaluation. In addition to high cost, invasive testing risks injury.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been called the “gold standard” test for evaluation of unexplained dyspnea (Palange P, et al. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:185).

Symptom-limited CPET measures multiple physiological variables during stress, potentially identifying the cause of dyspnea that is not evident by measurements made at rest. CPET may also differentiate the limiting factor in patients with multiple diseases that each could be contributing to dyspnea. CPET provides an objective measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness and may provide prognostic information. CPET typically consists of a symptom-limited maximal incremental exercise test using either a treadmill or cycle ergometer. The primary measurements include oxygen uptake (Vo₂), carbon dioxide output (Vco₂), minute ventilation (VE), ECG, blood pressure, oxygen saturation (Spo₂) and, depending on the indication, arterial blood gases at rest and peak exercise. An invasive CPET includes the above measurements and the addition of a pulmonary artery catheter and radial artery catheter allowing the assessment of ventricular filling pressures, pulmonary arterial pressures, cardiac output, and measures of oxygen transport. Invasive CPET is less commonly performed in clinical practice due to cost, high resource utilization, and greater risk of complications.

What is the evidence that CPET is the gold standard for evaluating dyspnea? Limited evidence supports this claim. Martinez and colleagues (Chest. 1994;105[1]:168) evaluated 50 patients presenting with unexplained dyspnea with normal CBC, thyroid studies, chest radiograph, and spirometry with no-invasive CPET. CPET was used to make an initial diagnosis, and this was compared with a definitive diagnosis based on additional testing guided by CPET findings and response to targeted therapy. Most patients (68%) eventually received a diagnossis of normal, deconditioned, hyperactive airway disease, or a psychogenic cause of dyspnea. The important findings from this study include: (1) CPET was able to identify cardiac or pulmonary disease, if present; (2) A normal CPET excluded significant cardiac or pulmonary disease in most patients suggesting that a normal CPET is useful in limiting subsequent testing; (3) In some patients, CPET wasn’t able to accurately differentiate cardiac disease from deconditioning as both exhibited an abnormal CPET pattern including low peak Vo₂, low Vo₂ at anaerobic threshold, decreased O₂ pulse, and often low peak heart rate. In more than 75% of patients, the CPET, and focused testing based on CPET findings, confidently identified the cause of dyspnea not explained by routine testing.

There is evidence that invasive CPET may provide diagnostic information when the cause of dyspnea is not identified using noninvasive testing. Huang and colleagues (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24[11]:1190) investigated the use of invasive CPET in 530 patients who had undergone extensive evaluation for dyspnea, including noninvasive CPET in 30% of patients, and the diagnosis remained unclear. The cause of dyspnea was determinedin all patients and included: exercise-induced pulmonary arterial hypertension (17%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (18%), dysautonomia or preload failure (21%), oxidative myopathy (25%), primary hyperventilation (8%), and various other conditions (11%). Most patients had been undergoing work up for unexplained dyspnea for a median of 511 days before evaluation in the dyspnea clinic. Huang et al’s study demonstrates some of the limitations of noninvasive CPET, including distinguishing cardiac limitation from dysautonomia or preload failure, deconditioning, oxidative myopathies, and mild pulmonary vascular disease. This study didn’t answer how many patients having noninvasive CPET would need an invasive study to get their diagnosis.

A limitation of both the Martinez et al and Huang et al studies is that they were conducted at subspecialty dyspnea clinics located in large referral centers and may not be representative of patients seen in general pulmonary clinics for the evaluation of dyspnea. This may result in over-representation of less common diseases, such as oxidative myopathies and dysautonomia or preload failure. Even with this limitation, these two studies showed that CPETs have the potential to expedite diagnoses and treatment in patients with unexplained dyspnea.

More investigation is needed to understand the clinical utility, and potential cost savings, of CPET for patients referred to general pulmonary clinics with unexplained dyspnea. We retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent CPET for unexplained dyspnea from 2017 to 2019 at Intermountain Medical Center (Cook CP. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: Suppl. 66, 1939). Nearly 50% of the patients undergoing CPET were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or normal. In patients under the age of 60 years, 64% were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or a normal study. Conversely, 70% of patients over the age of 60 years had an abnormal cardiac or pulmonary limitation.

We also evaluated whether CPET affected diagnostic testing patterns in the 6 months following testing. We determined that potentially inappropriate testing was performed in only 13% of patients after obtaining a CPET diagnosis. These data suggest that CPET results affect ordering provider behavior. Also, in younger patients, in whom initial evaluation is unrevealing of cardiopulmonary disease, a CPET could be performed early in the evaluation process. This may result in decreased health care cost and time to diagnosis. At our institution, CPET is less expensive than a transthoracic echocardiogram.

So, is CPET worthy of its status as the gold standard for determining the etiology of unexplained dysp-nea? The answer for noninvasive CPET is a definite “maybe.” There is evidence that some CPET patterns support a specific diagnosis. However, referring providers may be disappointed by CPET reports that do not provide a definitive cause for a patient’s dyspnea. An abnormal cardiac limitation may be caused by systolic or diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, preload failure or dysautonomia, deconditioning, and oxidative myopathy. Even in these situations, a specific CPET pattern may limit the differential diagnosis and facilitate a more focused and cost-effective evaluation. A normal CPET provides reassurance that significant disease is not causing the patient’s dyspnea and prevent further unnecessary and costly evaluation.

Unexplained dyspnea is a common complaint among patients seen in pulmonary clinics, and can be difficult to define, quantify, and determine the etiology. The ATS official statement defined dyspnea as “a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that consists of qualitatively distinct sensations that vary in intensity” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185:435). A myriad of diseases can cause dyspnea, including cardiac, pulmonary, neuromuscular, psychological, and hematologic disorders; obesity, deconditioning, and the normal aging process may also contribute to dyspnea. Adding further diagnostic confusion, multiple causes may exist in a given patient.

Finding the cause or causes of dyspnea can be difficult and may require extensive testing, time, and cost. Initially, a history and physical exam are performed with more focused testing undertaken depending on most likely causes. For most patients, initial evaluation includes a CBC, TSH, pulmonary function tests, chest radiograph, and, often, a transthoracic echocardiogram. If these tests are unrevealing, or if clinical suspicion is high, more costly, invasive, and time-consuming tests are obtained. These may include bronchoprovocation testing, cardiac stress tests, chest CT scan, and, if warranted, right- and/or left-sided heart catheterization. Ideally, these tests are utilized appropriately based on the patient’s clinical presentation and the results of initial evaluation. In addition to high cost, invasive testing risks injury.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been called the “gold standard” test for evaluation of unexplained dyspnea (Palange P, et al. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:185).

Symptom-limited CPET measures multiple physiological variables during stress, potentially identifying the cause of dyspnea that is not evident by measurements made at rest. CPET may also differentiate the limiting factor in patients with multiple diseases that each could be contributing to dyspnea. CPET provides an objective measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness and may provide prognostic information. CPET typically consists of a symptom-limited maximal incremental exercise test using either a treadmill or cycle ergometer. The primary measurements include oxygen uptake (Vo₂), carbon dioxide output (Vco₂), minute ventilation (VE), ECG, blood pressure, oxygen saturation (Spo₂) and, depending on the indication, arterial blood gases at rest and peak exercise. An invasive CPET includes the above measurements and the addition of a pulmonary artery catheter and radial artery catheter allowing the assessment of ventricular filling pressures, pulmonary arterial pressures, cardiac output, and measures of oxygen transport. Invasive CPET is less commonly performed in clinical practice due to cost, high resource utilization, and greater risk of complications.

What is the evidence that CPET is the gold standard for evaluating dyspnea? Limited evidence supports this claim. Martinez and colleagues (Chest. 1994;105[1]:168) evaluated 50 patients presenting with unexplained dyspnea with normal CBC, thyroid studies, chest radiograph, and spirometry with no-invasive CPET. CPET was used to make an initial diagnosis, and this was compared with a definitive diagnosis based on additional testing guided by CPET findings and response to targeted therapy. Most patients (68%) eventually received a diagnossis of normal, deconditioned, hyperactive airway disease, or a psychogenic cause of dyspnea. The important findings from this study include: (1) CPET was able to identify cardiac or pulmonary disease, if present; (2) A normal CPET excluded significant cardiac or pulmonary disease in most patients suggesting that a normal CPET is useful in limiting subsequent testing; (3) In some patients, CPET wasn’t able to accurately differentiate cardiac disease from deconditioning as both exhibited an abnormal CPET pattern including low peak Vo₂, low Vo₂ at anaerobic threshold, decreased O₂ pulse, and often low peak heart rate. In more than 75% of patients, the CPET, and focused testing based on CPET findings, confidently identified the cause of dyspnea not explained by routine testing.

There is evidence that invasive CPET may provide diagnostic information when the cause of dyspnea is not identified using noninvasive testing. Huang and colleagues (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24[11]:1190) investigated the use of invasive CPET in 530 patients who had undergone extensive evaluation for dyspnea, including noninvasive CPET in 30% of patients, and the diagnosis remained unclear. The cause of dyspnea was determinedin all patients and included: exercise-induced pulmonary arterial hypertension (17%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (18%), dysautonomia or preload failure (21%), oxidative myopathy (25%), primary hyperventilation (8%), and various other conditions (11%). Most patients had been undergoing work up for unexplained dyspnea for a median of 511 days before evaluation in the dyspnea clinic. Huang et al’s study demonstrates some of the limitations of noninvasive CPET, including distinguishing cardiac limitation from dysautonomia or preload failure, deconditioning, oxidative myopathies, and mild pulmonary vascular disease. This study didn’t answer how many patients having noninvasive CPET would need an invasive study to get their diagnosis.

A limitation of both the Martinez et al and Huang et al studies is that they were conducted at subspecialty dyspnea clinics located in large referral centers and may not be representative of patients seen in general pulmonary clinics for the evaluation of dyspnea. This may result in over-representation of less common diseases, such as oxidative myopathies and dysautonomia or preload failure. Even with this limitation, these two studies showed that CPETs have the potential to expedite diagnoses and treatment in patients with unexplained dyspnea.

More investigation is needed to understand the clinical utility, and potential cost savings, of CPET for patients referred to general pulmonary clinics with unexplained dyspnea. We retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent CPET for unexplained dyspnea from 2017 to 2019 at Intermountain Medical Center (Cook CP. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: Suppl. 66, 1939). Nearly 50% of the patients undergoing CPET were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or normal. In patients under the age of 60 years, 64% were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or a normal study. Conversely, 70% of patients over the age of 60 years had an abnormal cardiac or pulmonary limitation.

We also evaluated whether CPET affected diagnostic testing patterns in the 6 months following testing. We determined that potentially inappropriate testing was performed in only 13% of patients after obtaining a CPET diagnosis. These data suggest that CPET results affect ordering provider behavior. Also, in younger patients, in whom initial evaluation is unrevealing of cardiopulmonary disease, a CPET could be performed early in the evaluation process. This may result in decreased health care cost and time to diagnosis. At our institution, CPET is less expensive than a transthoracic echocardiogram.

So, is CPET worthy of its status as the gold standard for determining the etiology of unexplained dysp-nea? The answer for noninvasive CPET is a definite “maybe.” There is evidence that some CPET patterns support a specific diagnosis. However, referring providers may be disappointed by CPET reports that do not provide a definitive cause for a patient’s dyspnea. An abnormal cardiac limitation may be caused by systolic or diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, preload failure or dysautonomia, deconditioning, and oxidative myopathy. Even in these situations, a specific CPET pattern may limit the differential diagnosis and facilitate a more focused and cost-effective evaluation. A normal CPET provides reassurance that significant disease is not causing the patient’s dyspnea and prevent further unnecessary and costly evaluation.

Unexplained dyspnea is a common complaint among patients seen in pulmonary clinics, and can be difficult to define, quantify, and determine the etiology. The ATS official statement defined dyspnea as “a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that consists of qualitatively distinct sensations that vary in intensity” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185:435). A myriad of diseases can cause dyspnea, including cardiac, pulmonary, neuromuscular, psychological, and hematologic disorders; obesity, deconditioning, and the normal aging process may also contribute to dyspnea. Adding further diagnostic confusion, multiple causes may exist in a given patient.

Finding the cause or causes of dyspnea can be difficult and may require extensive testing, time, and cost. Initially, a history and physical exam are performed with more focused testing undertaken depending on most likely causes. For most patients, initial evaluation includes a CBC, TSH, pulmonary function tests, chest radiograph, and, often, a transthoracic echocardiogram. If these tests are unrevealing, or if clinical suspicion is high, more costly, invasive, and time-consuming tests are obtained. These may include bronchoprovocation testing, cardiac stress tests, chest CT scan, and, if warranted, right- and/or left-sided heart catheterization. Ideally, these tests are utilized appropriately based on the patient’s clinical presentation and the results of initial evaluation. In addition to high cost, invasive testing risks injury.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been called the “gold standard” test for evaluation of unexplained dyspnea (Palange P, et al. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:185).

Symptom-limited CPET measures multiple physiological variables during stress, potentially identifying the cause of dyspnea that is not evident by measurements made at rest. CPET may also differentiate the limiting factor in patients with multiple diseases that each could be contributing to dyspnea. CPET provides an objective measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness and may provide prognostic information. CPET typically consists of a symptom-limited maximal incremental exercise test using either a treadmill or cycle ergometer. The primary measurements include oxygen uptake (Vo₂), carbon dioxide output (Vco₂), minute ventilation (VE), ECG, blood pressure, oxygen saturation (Spo₂) and, depending on the indication, arterial blood gases at rest and peak exercise. An invasive CPET includes the above measurements and the addition of a pulmonary artery catheter and radial artery catheter allowing the assessment of ventricular filling pressures, pulmonary arterial pressures, cardiac output, and measures of oxygen transport. Invasive CPET is less commonly performed in clinical practice due to cost, high resource utilization, and greater risk of complications.

What is the evidence that CPET is the gold standard for evaluating dyspnea? Limited evidence supports this claim. Martinez and colleagues (Chest. 1994;105[1]:168) evaluated 50 patients presenting with unexplained dyspnea with normal CBC, thyroid studies, chest radiograph, and spirometry with no-invasive CPET. CPET was used to make an initial diagnosis, and this was compared with a definitive diagnosis based on additional testing guided by CPET findings and response to targeted therapy. Most patients (68%) eventually received a diagnossis of normal, deconditioned, hyperactive airway disease, or a psychogenic cause of dyspnea. The important findings from this study include: (1) CPET was able to identify cardiac or pulmonary disease, if present; (2) A normal CPET excluded significant cardiac or pulmonary disease in most patients suggesting that a normal CPET is useful in limiting subsequent testing; (3) In some patients, CPET wasn’t able to accurately differentiate cardiac disease from deconditioning as both exhibited an abnormal CPET pattern including low peak Vo₂, low Vo₂ at anaerobic threshold, decreased O₂ pulse, and often low peak heart rate. In more than 75% of patients, the CPET, and focused testing based on CPET findings, confidently identified the cause of dyspnea not explained by routine testing.

There is evidence that invasive CPET may provide diagnostic information when the cause of dyspnea is not identified using noninvasive testing. Huang and colleagues (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24[11]:1190) investigated the use of invasive CPET in 530 patients who had undergone extensive evaluation for dyspnea, including noninvasive CPET in 30% of patients, and the diagnosis remained unclear. The cause of dyspnea was determinedin all patients and included: exercise-induced pulmonary arterial hypertension (17%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (18%), dysautonomia or preload failure (21%), oxidative myopathy (25%), primary hyperventilation (8%), and various other conditions (11%). Most patients had been undergoing work up for unexplained dyspnea for a median of 511 days before evaluation in the dyspnea clinic. Huang et al’s study demonstrates some of the limitations of noninvasive CPET, including distinguishing cardiac limitation from dysautonomia or preload failure, deconditioning, oxidative myopathies, and mild pulmonary vascular disease. This study didn’t answer how many patients having noninvasive CPET would need an invasive study to get their diagnosis.

A limitation of both the Martinez et al and Huang et al studies is that they were conducted at subspecialty dyspnea clinics located in large referral centers and may not be representative of patients seen in general pulmonary clinics for the evaluation of dyspnea. This may result in over-representation of less common diseases, such as oxidative myopathies and dysautonomia or preload failure. Even with this limitation, these two studies showed that CPETs have the potential to expedite diagnoses and treatment in patients with unexplained dyspnea.

More investigation is needed to understand the clinical utility, and potential cost savings, of CPET for patients referred to general pulmonary clinics with unexplained dyspnea. We retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent CPET for unexplained dyspnea from 2017 to 2019 at Intermountain Medical Center (Cook CP. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: Suppl. 66, 1939). Nearly 50% of the patients undergoing CPET were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or normal. In patients under the age of 60 years, 64% were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or a normal study. Conversely, 70% of patients over the age of 60 years had an abnormal cardiac or pulmonary limitation.

We also evaluated whether CPET affected diagnostic testing patterns in the 6 months following testing. We determined that potentially inappropriate testing was performed in only 13% of patients after obtaining a CPET diagnosis. These data suggest that CPET results affect ordering provider behavior. Also, in younger patients, in whom initial evaluation is unrevealing of cardiopulmonary disease, a CPET could be performed early in the evaluation process. This may result in decreased health care cost and time to diagnosis. At our institution, CPET is less expensive than a transthoracic echocardiogram.

So, is CPET worthy of its status as the gold standard for determining the etiology of unexplained dysp-nea? The answer for noninvasive CPET is a definite “maybe.” There is evidence that some CPET patterns support a specific diagnosis. However, referring providers may be disappointed by CPET reports that do not provide a definitive cause for a patient’s dyspnea. An abnormal cardiac limitation may be caused by systolic or diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, preload failure or dysautonomia, deconditioning, and oxidative myopathy. Even in these situations, a specific CPET pattern may limit the differential diagnosis and facilitate a more focused and cost-effective evaluation. A normal CPET provides reassurance that significant disease is not causing the patient’s dyspnea and prevent further unnecessary and costly evaluation.

In recent months, we have seen the results of the much awaited Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) trial showing that a restrictive fluid and early vasopressor strategy initiated on arrival of patients with sepsis and hypotension in the ED did not result in decreased mortality compared with a liberal fluid approach (PETAL Network. www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2202707). The March 2023 issue of CHEST Physician provided a synopsis of the trial highlighting several limitations (Splete H. CHEST Physician. 2023;18[3]:1). Last year in 2022, the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock (CLASSIC) trial also showed no difference in mortality with restrictive fluid compared with standard fluid in patients with septic shock in the ICU already receiving vasopressor therapy (Meyhoff TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[26]:2459). Did CLOVERS and CLASSIC resolve the ongoing debate about the timing and quantity of fluid resuscitation in sepsis? Did their results suggest a “you can do what you want” approach? Is the management of sepsis and septic shock limited to fluids vs vasopressors? Hopefully, the ongoing studies ARISE FLUIDS (NCT04569942), EVIS (NCT05179499), FRESHLY (NCT05453565), 1BED (NCT05273034), and REDUCE (NCT04931485) will further address these questions.

In the meantime, I continue to admit and care for patients with sepsis in the ICU. One example was a 72-year-old woman with a history of stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease presenting with 3 days of progressive cough and dyspnea. In the ED, temperature was 38.2° C, heart rate 120 beats per min, respiratory rate 28/min, blood pressure 82/48 mm Hg, and weight 92 kg. She had audible crackles in the left lower lung. Her laboratory and imaging results supported a diagnosis of sepsis due to severe community-acquired pneumonia, including the following values: white blood cell 18.2 million/mm3; lactate 3.8 mmol/L; and creatinine 4.3 mg/dL.

While in the ED, the patient received 1 liter of crystalloid fluids and appropriate broad spectrum antibiotics. Repeat lactate value was 2.8 mmol/L. Patient’s blood pressure then decreased to 85/42 mm Hg. Norepinephrine was started peripherally and titrated to 6 mcg/min to achieve blood pressure 104/56 mm Hg. No further fluid administration was given, and the patient was admitted to the medical ICU. On admission, a repeat lactate had increased to 3.4 mmol/L with blood pressure of 80/45 mm Hg. Instead of further escalating vasopressor administration, she received 2 L of fluid and continued at 150 mL/h. Shortly after, norepinephrine was titrated off. Fluid resuscitation was then deescalated. We transfered the patient to the general ward within 12 hours of ICU admission.

Could we have avoided ICU admission and critical care resource utilization if the patient had received more optimal fluid resuscitation in the ED?

While our fear of fluids (or hydrophobia) may be unwarranted, the management of this patient was a common example of fluid restriction in sepsis (Jaehne AK, et al. Crit Care Med. 2016;44[12]:2263). By clinical criteria, she was in septic shock (requiring vasopressor) and appropriately required ICU admission. But, I would posit that the patient had severe sepsis based on pre-Sepsis 3 criteria. Optimal initial fluid resuscitation would have prevented her from requiring vasopressor and progressing to septic shock with ICU admission. Unfortunately, the patient’s care reflected the objective of CLOVERS and its results. Other than the lack of decreased mortality, decreased ventilator use, decreased renal replacement therapy, and decreased hospital length of stay, restricting fluids resulted in an increase of 8.1% (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 12.8) ICU utilization. Furthermore, the data and safety monitoring committee halted the trial for futility at two-thirds of enrollment. One must wonder if CLOVERS had completed its intended enrollment of 2,320 patients, negative outcomes would have occurred.

Should an astute clinician interpret the results of the CLOVERS and CLASSIC trials as “Fluids, it doesn’t matter, so I can do what I want?” Absolutely not! The literature is abundant with studies showing that increasing dose and/or number of vasopressors is associated with higher mortality in septic shock. One example is a recent multicenter prospective cohort study examining the association of vasopressor dosing during the first 24 hours and 30-day mortality in septic shock over 33 hospitals (Roberts RJ, et al. Crit Care Med. 2020;48[10]:1445).

Six hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled with 31% 30-day mortality. In 24 hours after shock diagnosis, patients received a median of 3.4 (1.9-5.3) L of fluids and 8.5 mcg/min norepinephrine equivalent. During the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing was associated with increased odds of mortality. Every 10 mcg/min increase in norepinephrine over the 24-hour period was associated with a 33% increased odds of mortality. Patients who received no fluids but 35 mcg/min norepinephrine in 6 hours had the highest mortality of 50%. As fluid volume increased, the association between vasopressor dosing and mortality decreased, such that at least 2 L of fluid during the first 6 hours was required for this association to become nonsignificant. Based on these results and a number of past studies, we should be cautious in believing that a resuscitation strategy favoring vasopressors would result in a better outcome.

Shock resuscitation is complex, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. With the present climate, the success of resuscitation has been simplified to assessing fluid responsiveness. Trainees learn to identify the inferior vena cava and lung B-lines by ultrasound. With more advanced technology, stroke volume variation is considered. And, let us not forget the passive leg raise. Rarely can our fellows and residents recite the components of oxygen delivery as targets of shock resuscitation: preload, afterload, contractility, hemoglobin, and oxygen saturation. Another patient example comes to mind when fluid responsiveness alone is inadequate.

Our patient was a 46-year-old man now day 4 in the ICU with Klebsiella bacteremia and acute cholecystitis undergoing medical management. His comorbidities included diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction 35%. He was supported sson mechanical ventilation, norepinephrine 20 mcg/min, and receiving appropriate antibiotics. For hemodynamic monitoring, a central venous and arterial catheter have been placed. The patient had a heart rate 92 beats per min, mean arterial pressure (MAP) 57 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) 26 mm Hg, stroke volume variation (SVV) 9%, cardiac output (CO) 2.5 L/min, and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) 42%.

Based on these parameters, we initiated dobutamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min, which was then titrated to 20 mcg/kg/min over 2 hours to achieve ScvO₂ 72%. Interestingly, CVP had decreased to 18 mm Hg, SVV increased to 16%, with CO 4.5 L/min. MAP also increased to 68 mm Hg. We then administered 1-L fluid bolus with the elevated SVV. Given the patient’s underlying cardiomyopathy, CVP < 20 mm Hg appeared to indicate a state of fluid responsiveness. After our fluid administration, heart rate 98 beats per min, MAP 70 mm Hg, CVP increased to 21 mm Hg, SVV 12%, CO 4.7 L/min, and ScvO₂ 74%. In acknowledging a mixed hypovolemic, cardiogenic, and septic shock, we had optimized his hemodynamic state. Importantly, during this exercise of hemodynamic manipulation, we were able to decrease norepinephrine to 8 mcg/min, maintaining dobutamine at 20 mcg/kg/min.

The above case illustrates that the hemodynamic perturbations in sepsis and septic shock are not simple. Patients do not present with a single shock state. An infection progressing to shock often is confounded by hypovolemia and underlying comorbidities, such as cardiac dysfunction. Without considering the complex physiology, our desire to continue the debate of fluids vs vasopressors is on the brink of taking us back several decades when the management of sepsis was to start a fluid bolus, administer “Rocephin,” and initiate dopamine. But I remind myself that we have made advances – now it’s 1 L lactated Ringer’s, administer “vanco and zosyn,” and initiate norepinephrine.

In recent months, we have seen the results of the much awaited Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) trial showing that a restrictive fluid and early vasopressor strategy initiated on arrival of patients with sepsis and hypotension in the ED did not result in decreased mortality compared with a liberal fluid approach (PETAL Network. www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2202707). The March 2023 issue of CHEST Physician provided a synopsis of the trial highlighting several limitations (Splete H. CHEST Physician. 2023;18[3]:1). Last year in 2022, the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock (CLASSIC) trial also showed no difference in mortality with restrictive fluid compared with standard fluid in patients with septic shock in the ICU already receiving vasopressor therapy (Meyhoff TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[26]:2459). Did CLOVERS and CLASSIC resolve the ongoing debate about the timing and quantity of fluid resuscitation in sepsis? Did their results suggest a “you can do what you want” approach? Is the management of sepsis and septic shock limited to fluids vs vasopressors? Hopefully, the ongoing studies ARISE FLUIDS (NCT04569942), EVIS (NCT05179499), FRESHLY (NCT05453565), 1BED (NCT05273034), and REDUCE (NCT04931485) will further address these questions.

In the meantime, I continue to admit and care for patients with sepsis in the ICU. One example was a 72-year-old woman with a history of stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease presenting with 3 days of progressive cough and dyspnea. In the ED, temperature was 38.2° C, heart rate 120 beats per min, respiratory rate 28/min, blood pressure 82/48 mm Hg, and weight 92 kg. She had audible crackles in the left lower lung. Her laboratory and imaging results supported a diagnosis of sepsis due to severe community-acquired pneumonia, including the following values: white blood cell 18.2 million/mm3; lactate 3.8 mmol/L; and creatinine 4.3 mg/dL.

While in the ED, the patient received 1 liter of crystalloid fluids and appropriate broad spectrum antibiotics. Repeat lactate value was 2.8 mmol/L. Patient’s blood pressure then decreased to 85/42 mm Hg. Norepinephrine was started peripherally and titrated to 6 mcg/min to achieve blood pressure 104/56 mm Hg. No further fluid administration was given, and the patient was admitted to the medical ICU. On admission, a repeat lactate had increased to 3.4 mmol/L with blood pressure of 80/45 mm Hg. Instead of further escalating vasopressor administration, she received 2 L of fluid and continued at 150 mL/h. Shortly after, norepinephrine was titrated off. Fluid resuscitation was then deescalated. We transfered the patient to the general ward within 12 hours of ICU admission.

Could we have avoided ICU admission and critical care resource utilization if the patient had received more optimal fluid resuscitation in the ED?

While our fear of fluids (or hydrophobia) may be unwarranted, the management of this patient was a common example of fluid restriction in sepsis (Jaehne AK, et al. Crit Care Med. 2016;44[12]:2263). By clinical criteria, she was in septic shock (requiring vasopressor) and appropriately required ICU admission. But, I would posit that the patient had severe sepsis based on pre-Sepsis 3 criteria. Optimal initial fluid resuscitation would have prevented her from requiring vasopressor and progressing to septic shock with ICU admission. Unfortunately, the patient’s care reflected the objective of CLOVERS and its results. Other than the lack of decreased mortality, decreased ventilator use, decreased renal replacement therapy, and decreased hospital length of stay, restricting fluids resulted in an increase of 8.1% (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 12.8) ICU utilization. Furthermore, the data and safety monitoring committee halted the trial for futility at two-thirds of enrollment. One must wonder if CLOVERS had completed its intended enrollment of 2,320 patients, negative outcomes would have occurred.

Should an astute clinician interpret the results of the CLOVERS and CLASSIC trials as “Fluids, it doesn’t matter, so I can do what I want?” Absolutely not! The literature is abundant with studies showing that increasing dose and/or number of vasopressors is associated with higher mortality in septic shock. One example is a recent multicenter prospective cohort study examining the association of vasopressor dosing during the first 24 hours and 30-day mortality in septic shock over 33 hospitals (Roberts RJ, et al. Crit Care Med. 2020;48[10]:1445).

Six hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled with 31% 30-day mortality. In 24 hours after shock diagnosis, patients received a median of 3.4 (1.9-5.3) L of fluids and 8.5 mcg/min norepinephrine equivalent. During the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing was associated with increased odds of mortality. Every 10 mcg/min increase in norepinephrine over the 24-hour period was associated with a 33% increased odds of mortality. Patients who received no fluids but 35 mcg/min norepinephrine in 6 hours had the highest mortality of 50%. As fluid volume increased, the association between vasopressor dosing and mortality decreased, such that at least 2 L of fluid during the first 6 hours was required for this association to become nonsignificant. Based on these results and a number of past studies, we should be cautious in believing that a resuscitation strategy favoring vasopressors would result in a better outcome.

Shock resuscitation is complex, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. With the present climate, the success of resuscitation has been simplified to assessing fluid responsiveness. Trainees learn to identify the inferior vena cava and lung B-lines by ultrasound. With more advanced technology, stroke volume variation is considered. And, let us not forget the passive leg raise. Rarely can our fellows and residents recite the components of oxygen delivery as targets of shock resuscitation: preload, afterload, contractility, hemoglobin, and oxygen saturation. Another patient example comes to mind when fluid responsiveness alone is inadequate.

Our patient was a 46-year-old man now day 4 in the ICU with Klebsiella bacteremia and acute cholecystitis undergoing medical management. His comorbidities included diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction 35%. He was supported sson mechanical ventilation, norepinephrine 20 mcg/min, and receiving appropriate antibiotics. For hemodynamic monitoring, a central venous and arterial catheter have been placed. The patient had a heart rate 92 beats per min, mean arterial pressure (MAP) 57 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) 26 mm Hg, stroke volume variation (SVV) 9%, cardiac output (CO) 2.5 L/min, and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) 42%.

Based on these parameters, we initiated dobutamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min, which was then titrated to 20 mcg/kg/min over 2 hours to achieve ScvO₂ 72%. Interestingly, CVP had decreased to 18 mm Hg, SVV increased to 16%, with CO 4.5 L/min. MAP also increased to 68 mm Hg. We then administered 1-L fluid bolus with the elevated SVV. Given the patient’s underlying cardiomyopathy, CVP < 20 mm Hg appeared to indicate a state of fluid responsiveness. After our fluid administration, heart rate 98 beats per min, MAP 70 mm Hg, CVP increased to 21 mm Hg, SVV 12%, CO 4.7 L/min, and ScvO₂ 74%. In acknowledging a mixed hypovolemic, cardiogenic, and septic shock, we had optimized his hemodynamic state. Importantly, during this exercise of hemodynamic manipulation, we were able to decrease norepinephrine to 8 mcg/min, maintaining dobutamine at 20 mcg/kg/min.

The above case illustrates that the hemodynamic perturbations in sepsis and septic shock are not simple. Patients do not present with a single shock state. An infection progressing to shock often is confounded by hypovolemia and underlying comorbidities, such as cardiac dysfunction. Without considering the complex physiology, our desire to continue the debate of fluids vs vasopressors is on the brink of taking us back several decades when the management of sepsis was to start a fluid bolus, administer “Rocephin,” and initiate dopamine. But I remind myself that we have made advances – now it’s 1 L lactated Ringer’s, administer “vanco and zosyn,” and initiate norepinephrine.

In recent months, we have seen the results of the much awaited Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) trial showing that a restrictive fluid and early vasopressor strategy initiated on arrival of patients with sepsis and hypotension in the ED did not result in decreased mortality compared with a liberal fluid approach (PETAL Network. www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2202707). The March 2023 issue of CHEST Physician provided a synopsis of the trial highlighting several limitations (Splete H. CHEST Physician. 2023;18[3]:1). Last year in 2022, the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock (CLASSIC) trial also showed no difference in mortality with restrictive fluid compared with standard fluid in patients with septic shock in the ICU already receiving vasopressor therapy (Meyhoff TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[26]:2459). Did CLOVERS and CLASSIC resolve the ongoing debate about the timing and quantity of fluid resuscitation in sepsis? Did their results suggest a “you can do what you want” approach? Is the management of sepsis and septic shock limited to fluids vs vasopressors? Hopefully, the ongoing studies ARISE FLUIDS (NCT04569942), EVIS (NCT05179499), FRESHLY (NCT05453565), 1BED (NCT05273034), and REDUCE (NCT04931485) will further address these questions.

In the meantime, I continue to admit and care for patients with sepsis in the ICU. One example was a 72-year-old woman with a history of stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease presenting with 3 days of progressive cough and dyspnea. In the ED, temperature was 38.2° C, heart rate 120 beats per min, respiratory rate 28/min, blood pressure 82/48 mm Hg, and weight 92 kg. She had audible crackles in the left lower lung. Her laboratory and imaging results supported a diagnosis of sepsis due to severe community-acquired pneumonia, including the following values: white blood cell 18.2 million/mm3; lactate 3.8 mmol/L; and creatinine 4.3 mg/dL.

While in the ED, the patient received 1 liter of crystalloid fluids and appropriate broad spectrum antibiotics. Repeat lactate value was 2.8 mmol/L. Patient’s blood pressure then decreased to 85/42 mm Hg. Norepinephrine was started peripherally and titrated to 6 mcg/min to achieve blood pressure 104/56 mm Hg. No further fluid administration was given, and the patient was admitted to the medical ICU. On admission, a repeat lactate had increased to 3.4 mmol/L with blood pressure of 80/45 mm Hg. Instead of further escalating vasopressor administration, she received 2 L of fluid and continued at 150 mL/h. Shortly after, norepinephrine was titrated off. Fluid resuscitation was then deescalated. We transfered the patient to the general ward within 12 hours of ICU admission.

Could we have avoided ICU admission and critical care resource utilization if the patient had received more optimal fluid resuscitation in the ED?

While our fear of fluids (or hydrophobia) may be unwarranted, the management of this patient was a common example of fluid restriction in sepsis (Jaehne AK, et al. Crit Care Med. 2016;44[12]:2263). By clinical criteria, she was in septic shock (requiring vasopressor) and appropriately required ICU admission. But, I would posit that the patient had severe sepsis based on pre-Sepsis 3 criteria. Optimal initial fluid resuscitation would have prevented her from requiring vasopressor and progressing to septic shock with ICU admission. Unfortunately, the patient’s care reflected the objective of CLOVERS and its results. Other than the lack of decreased mortality, decreased ventilator use, decreased renal replacement therapy, and decreased hospital length of stay, restricting fluids resulted in an increase of 8.1% (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 12.8) ICU utilization. Furthermore, the data and safety monitoring committee halted the trial for futility at two-thirds of enrollment. One must wonder if CLOVERS had completed its intended enrollment of 2,320 patients, negative outcomes would have occurred.

Should an astute clinician interpret the results of the CLOVERS and CLASSIC trials as “Fluids, it doesn’t matter, so I can do what I want?” Absolutely not! The literature is abundant with studies showing that increasing dose and/or number of vasopressors is associated with higher mortality in septic shock. One example is a recent multicenter prospective cohort study examining the association of vasopressor dosing during the first 24 hours and 30-day mortality in septic shock over 33 hospitals (Roberts RJ, et al. Crit Care Med. 2020;48[10]:1445).

Six hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled with 31% 30-day mortality. In 24 hours after shock diagnosis, patients received a median of 3.4 (1.9-5.3) L of fluids and 8.5 mcg/min norepinephrine equivalent. During the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing was associated with increased odds of mortality. Every 10 mcg/min increase in norepinephrine over the 24-hour period was associated with a 33% increased odds of mortality. Patients who received no fluids but 35 mcg/min norepinephrine in 6 hours had the highest mortality of 50%. As fluid volume increased, the association between vasopressor dosing and mortality decreased, such that at least 2 L of fluid during the first 6 hours was required for this association to become nonsignificant. Based on these results and a number of past studies, we should be cautious in believing that a resuscitation strategy favoring vasopressors would result in a better outcome.

Shock resuscitation is complex, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. With the present climate, the success of resuscitation has been simplified to assessing fluid responsiveness. Trainees learn to identify the inferior vena cava and lung B-lines by ultrasound. With more advanced technology, stroke volume variation is considered. And, let us not forget the passive leg raise. Rarely can our fellows and residents recite the components of oxygen delivery as targets of shock resuscitation: preload, afterload, contractility, hemoglobin, and oxygen saturation. Another patient example comes to mind when fluid responsiveness alone is inadequate.

Our patient was a 46-year-old man now day 4 in the ICU with Klebsiella bacteremia and acute cholecystitis undergoing medical management. His comorbidities included diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction 35%. He was supported sson mechanical ventilation, norepinephrine 20 mcg/min, and receiving appropriate antibiotics. For hemodynamic monitoring, a central venous and arterial catheter have been placed. The patient had a heart rate 92 beats per min, mean arterial pressure (MAP) 57 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) 26 mm Hg, stroke volume variation (SVV) 9%, cardiac output (CO) 2.5 L/min, and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) 42%.

Based on these parameters, we initiated dobutamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min, which was then titrated to 20 mcg/kg/min over 2 hours to achieve ScvO₂ 72%. Interestingly, CVP had decreased to 18 mm Hg, SVV increased to 16%, with CO 4.5 L/min. MAP also increased to 68 mm Hg. We then administered 1-L fluid bolus with the elevated SVV. Given the patient’s underlying cardiomyopathy, CVP < 20 mm Hg appeared to indicate a state of fluid responsiveness. After our fluid administration, heart rate 98 beats per min, MAP 70 mm Hg, CVP increased to 21 mm Hg, SVV 12%, CO 4.7 L/min, and ScvO₂ 74%. In acknowledging a mixed hypovolemic, cardiogenic, and septic shock, we had optimized his hemodynamic state. Importantly, during this exercise of hemodynamic manipulation, we were able to decrease norepinephrine to 8 mcg/min, maintaining dobutamine at 20 mcg/kg/min.

The above case illustrates that the hemodynamic perturbations in sepsis and septic shock are not simple. Patients do not present with a single shock state. An infection progressing to shock often is confounded by hypovolemia and underlying comorbidities, such as cardiac dysfunction. Without considering the complex physiology, our desire to continue the debate of fluids vs vasopressors is on the brink of taking us back several decades when the management of sepsis was to start a fluid bolus, administer “Rocephin,” and initiate dopamine. But I remind myself that we have made advances – now it’s 1 L lactated Ringer’s, administer “vanco and zosyn,” and initiate norepinephrine.

Patients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD) face an increased risk of respiratory muscle weakness, which can contribute to various health problems. These include chronic respiratory failure, sleep-related breathing disorders, sialorrhea, and reduced cough effectiveness. In collaboration with AASM, AARC, and ATS, CHEST has developed guidelines to help clinicians manage patients with NMD. Through a systematic review of 128 studies related to this topic, the expert panel developed 15 graded recommendations, a good practice statement, and a consensus-based statement using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology.

A few of the key recommendations are as follows:

1. Addressing the use and timing of pulmonary function tests (PFT), the panel suggests measuring vital capacity (FVC or SVC), MIP/MEP, SNIP, or PCF in patients with NMD every 6 months.

2. For the detection of respiratory failure and sleep-related breathing disorders in symptomatic patients with NMD who have normal PFT and overnight oximetry (ONO), the panel suggested that clinicians consider polysomnography (PSG) to assess whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial. Adult patients do not have to have PSG to manage NMD if the PFT or ONO criteria support using NIV.

3. The panel recommends the use of NIV for the treatment of respiratory failure. To guide the initiation of NIV, clinicians can use any fall in FVC to < 80% of predicted with symptoms or FVC to < 50% of predicted without symptoms or SNIP/MIP to < –40 cm H₂O or hypercapnia. The panel recommended individualizing treatment.

4. The panel suggested mouth piece ventilation (MPV) for daytime ventilatory support in patients with preserved bulbar function. Its desirable effects include delaying or avoiding tracheostomy and improving speech, cough effectiveness, and coordination of breathing and swallowing.

5. Invasive home mechanical ventilation (MV) by tracheostomy was identified as an acceptable option for patients with progressive respiratory failure, particularly those who were unable to clear secretions. Because of the high costs and caregiver burden, the guideline highlights the need to consider patient preferences, tolerability, the ability to maintain mouthpiece ventilation, and the availability of resources when choosing an appropriate treatment option.

6. The panel suggested practicing clinicians address the management of sialorrhea and airway clearance techniques in patients with NMD, as they face the risk of aspiration and pneumonia. For sialorrhea, the panel suggests starting with a trial of anticholinergic agents, as they are inexpensive and readily available. The panel also provided advice on botulinum toxin therapy and radiation therapy, which have limited data and should be reserved for experienced centers.

7. The panel reviewed data on airway clearance techniques, including glossopharyngeal breathing (GPB), mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E), also commonly known as cough-assist device, manually assisted cough, lung volume recruitment (LVR) by air stacking, and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). The panel suggested using airway clearance techniques based on local resources, expertise, and shared decision-making with patients.

The panel stressed the importance of respect for patient preferences, treatment goals, and quality of life considerations. The panel emphasized the need to modernize and improve access to ventilatory support for patients with NMD and the role of shared decision-making in improving quality of life and long-term outcomes. The panel also suggests that randomized controlled trials in patients with NMD would help establish a higher grade of evidence.
 

Dr. Hubel and Dr. Khan are from the Division of Pulmonary Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

Reference

Khan A et al. Respiratory management of patients with neuromuscular weakness: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline and Expert Panel Report [published online ahead of print, 2023 Mar 13]. Chest. 2023;S0012-3692(23)00353-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.03.011.

Patients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD) face an increased risk of respiratory muscle weakness, which can contribute to various health problems. These include chronic respiratory failure, sleep-related breathing disorders, sialorrhea, and reduced cough effectiveness. In collaboration with AASM, AARC, and ATS, CHEST has developed guidelines to help clinicians manage patients with NMD. Through a systematic review of 128 studies related to this topic, the expert panel developed 15 graded recommendations, a good practice statement, and a consensus-based statement using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology.

A few of the key recommendations are as follows:

1. Addressing the use and timing of pulmonary function tests (PFT), the panel suggests measuring vital capacity (FVC or SVC), MIP/MEP, SNIP, or PCF in patients with NMD every 6 months.

2. For the detection of respiratory failure and sleep-related breathing disorders in symptomatic patients with NMD who have normal PFT and overnight oximetry (ONO), the panel suggested that clinicians consider polysomnography (PSG) to assess whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial. Adult patients do not have to have PSG to manage NMD if the PFT or ONO criteria support using NIV.

3. The panel recommends the use of NIV for the treatment of respiratory failure. To guide the initiation of NIV, clinicians can use any fall in FVC to < 80% of predicted with symptoms or FVC to < 50% of predicted without symptoms or SNIP/MIP to < –40 cm H₂O or hypercapnia. The panel recommended individualizing treatment.

4. The panel suggested mouth piece ventilation (MPV) for daytime ventilatory support in patients with preserved bulbar function. Its desirable effects include delaying or avoiding tracheostomy and improving speech, cough effectiveness, and coordination of breathing and swallowing.

5. Invasive home mechanical ventilation (MV) by tracheostomy was identified as an acceptable option for patients with progressive respiratory failure, particularly those who were unable to clear secretions. Because of the high costs and caregiver burden, the guideline highlights the need to consider patient preferences, tolerability, the ability to maintain mouthpiece ventilation, and the availability of resources when choosing an appropriate treatment option.

6. The panel suggested practicing clinicians address the management of sialorrhea and airway clearance techniques in patients with NMD, as they face the risk of aspiration and pneumonia. For sialorrhea, the panel suggests starting with a trial of anticholinergic agents, as they are inexpensive and readily available. The panel also provided advice on botulinum toxin therapy and radiation therapy, which have limited data and should be reserved for experienced centers.

7. The panel reviewed data on airway clearance techniques, including glossopharyngeal breathing (GPB), mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E), also commonly known as cough-assist device, manually assisted cough, lung volume recruitment (LVR) by air stacking, and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). The panel suggested using airway clearance techniques based on local resources, expertise, and shared decision-making with patients.

The panel stressed the importance of respect for patient preferences, treatment goals, and quality of life considerations. The panel emphasized the need to modernize and improve access to ventilatory support for patients with NMD and the role of shared decision-making in improving quality of life and long-term outcomes. The panel also suggests that randomized controlled trials in patients with NMD would help establish a higher grade of evidence.
 

Dr. Hubel and Dr. Khan are from the Division of Pulmonary Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

Reference

Khan A et al. Respiratory management of patients with neuromuscular weakness: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline and Expert Panel Report [published online ahead of print, 2023 Mar 13]. Chest. 2023;S0012-3692(23)00353-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.03.011.

Patients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD) face an increased risk of respiratory muscle weakness, which can contribute to various health problems. These include chronic respiratory failure, sleep-related breathing disorders, sialorrhea, and reduced cough effectiveness. In collaboration with AASM, AARC, and ATS, CHEST has developed guidelines to help clinicians manage patients with NMD. Through a systematic review of 128 studies related to this topic, the expert panel developed 15 graded recommendations, a good practice statement, and a consensus-based statement using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology.

A few of the key recommendations are as follows:

1. Addressing the use and timing of pulmonary function tests (PFT), the panel suggests measuring vital capacity (FVC or SVC), MIP/MEP, SNIP, or PCF in patients with NMD every 6 months.

2. For the detection of respiratory failure and sleep-related breathing disorders in symptomatic patients with NMD who have normal PFT and overnight oximetry (ONO), the panel suggested that clinicians consider polysomnography (PSG) to assess whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial. Adult patients do not have to have PSG to manage NMD if the PFT or ONO criteria support using NIV.

3. The panel recommends the use of NIV for the treatment of respiratory failure. To guide the initiation of NIV, clinicians can use any fall in FVC to < 80% of predicted with symptoms or FVC to < 50% of predicted without symptoms or SNIP/MIP to < –40 cm H₂O or hypercapnia. The panel recommended individualizing treatment.

4. The panel suggested mouth piece ventilation (MPV) for daytime ventilatory support in patients with preserved bulbar function. Its desirable effects include delaying or avoiding tracheostomy and improving speech, cough effectiveness, and coordination of breathing and swallowing.

5. Invasive home mechanical ventilation (MV) by tracheostomy was identified as an acceptable option for patients with progressive respiratory failure, particularly those who were unable to clear secretions. Because of the high costs and caregiver burden, the guideline highlights the need to consider patient preferences, tolerability, the ability to maintain mouthpiece ventilation, and the availability of resources when choosing an appropriate treatment option.

6. The panel suggested practicing clinicians address the management of sialorrhea and airway clearance techniques in patients with NMD, as they face the risk of aspiration and pneumonia. For sialorrhea, the panel suggests starting with a trial of anticholinergic agents, as they are inexpensive and readily available. The panel also provided advice on botulinum toxin therapy and radiation therapy, which have limited data and should be reserved for experienced centers.

7. The panel reviewed data on airway clearance techniques, including glossopharyngeal breathing (GPB), mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E), also commonly known as cough-assist device, manually assisted cough, lung volume recruitment (LVR) by air stacking, and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). The panel suggested using airway clearance techniques based on local resources, expertise, and shared decision-making with patients.

The panel stressed the importance of respect for patient preferences, treatment goals, and quality of life considerations. The panel emphasized the need to modernize and improve access to ventilatory support for patients with NMD and the role of shared decision-making in improving quality of life and long-term outcomes. The panel also suggests that randomized controlled trials in patients with NMD would help establish a higher grade of evidence.
 

Dr. Hubel and Dr. Khan are from the Division of Pulmonary Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

Reference

Khan A et al. Respiratory management of patients with neuromuscular weakness: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline and Expert Panel Report [published online ahead of print, 2023 Mar 13]. Chest. 2023;S0012-3692(23)00353-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.03.011.

While millions of Americans in the Midwest and on the Eastern Seaboard got some relief from the wildfire smoke from Canada, with more relief expected over the weekend, health experts warned that for at-risk people, some hazardous health effects may persist. 

People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.

Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.

The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.

“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

How serious are the health warnings?

Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do? 

We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.

“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help. 

Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
 

Fine particles, big concerns

The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.

Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.

“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.

The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.

Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
 

Time to wear a mask again?

A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.

KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.

“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
 

What does that number mean?

The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.

The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”

How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.

New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.

AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”

• 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
• 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
• 252: Kent County, Del.
• 270: Philadelphia.
• 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
• 293: Northern Virginia.
• 293: Metropolitan Washington.

These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:

• 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
• 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.

To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.

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

While millions of Americans in the Midwest and on the Eastern Seaboard got some relief from the wildfire smoke from Canada, with more relief expected over the weekend, health experts warned that for at-risk people, some hazardous health effects may persist. 

People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.

Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.

The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.

“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

How serious are the health warnings?

Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do? 

We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.

“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help. 

Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
 

Fine particles, big concerns

The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.

Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.

“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.

The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.

Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
 

Time to wear a mask again?

A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.

KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.

“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
 

What does that number mean?

The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.

The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”

How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.

New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.

AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”

• 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
• 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
• 252: Kent County, Del.
• 270: Philadelphia.
• 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
• 293: Northern Virginia.
• 293: Metropolitan Washington.

These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:

• 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
• 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.

To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.

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

While millions of Americans in the Midwest and on the Eastern Seaboard got some relief from the wildfire smoke from Canada, with more relief expected over the weekend, health experts warned that for at-risk people, some hazardous health effects may persist. 

People with moderate to severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other risk factors are used to checking air quality warnings before heading outside. But this situation is anything but typical.

Even people not normally at risk can have burning eyes, a runny nose, and a hard time breathing. These are among the symptoms to watch for as health effects of wildfire smoke. Special considerations should be made for people with heart disease, lung disease, and other conditions that put them at increased risk. Those affected can also have trouble sleeping, anxiety, and ongoing mental health issues.

The smoke will stick around the next few days, possibly clearing out early next week when the winds change direction, Weather Channel meteorologist Ari Sarsalari predicted June 8. But that doesn’t mean any physical or mental health effects will clear up as quickly.

“We are seeing dramatic increases in air pollution, and we are seeing increases in patients coming to the ED and the hospital. We expect that this will increase in the days ahead,” said Meredith McCormack, MD, MHS, a volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

“The air quality in our area – Baltimore – and other surrounding areas is not healthy for anyone,” said Dr. McCormack, who specializes in pulmonary and critical care medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
 

How serious are the health warnings?

Residents of California might be more familiar with the hazards of wildfire smoke, but this is a novel experience for many people along the East Coast. Air quality advisories are popping up on cellphones for people living in Boston, New York, and as far south as Northern Virginia. What should the estimated 75 million to 128 million affected Americans do? 

We asked experts to weigh in on when it’s safe or not safe to spend time outside, when to seek medical help, and the best ways for people to protect themselves.

“It’s important to stay indoors and close all windows to reduce exposure to smoke from wildfires. It’s also essential to stay away from any windows that may not have a good seal, in order to minimize any potential exposure to smoke,” said Robert Glatter, MD, editor at large for Medscape Emergency Medicine and an emergency medicine doctor at Lenox Hill Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Dr. Glatter noted that placing moist towels under doors and sealing leaking windows can help. 

Monitor your symptoms, and contact your doctor or go to urgent care, Dr. McCormack advised, if you see any increase in concerning symptoms. These include shortness of breath, coughing, chest tightness, or wheezing. Also make sure you take recommended medications and have enough on hand, she said.
 

Fine particles, big concerns

The weather is warming in many parts of the country, and that can mean air conditioning. Adding a MERV 13 filter to a central air conditioning system could reduce exposure to wildfire smoke. Using a portable indoor air purifier with a HEPA filter also can help people without central air conditioning. The filter can help remove small particles in the air but must be replaced regularly.

Smoke from wildfires contains multiple toxins, including heavy metals, carcinogens, and fine particulate matter (PM) under 2.5 microns. Dr. Glatter explained that these particles are about 100 times thinner than a human hair. Because of their size, they can embed deeper into the airways in the lungs and trigger chronic inflammation.

“This has also been linked to increased rates of lung cancer and brain tumors,” he said, based on a 2022 study in Canada.

The effects of smoke from wildfires can continue for many years. After the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire, emergency department visits for respiratory conditions and cardiovascular complaints remained higher for up to 2-5 years later, Dr. Glatter said. Again, large quantities of fine particulate matter in the smoke, less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), was to blame.

Exposure to smoke from wildfires during pregnancy has also been linked to abnormal fetal growth, preterm birth, as well as low birth weight, a January 2023 preprint on MedRxiv suggested.
 

Time to wear a mask again?

A properly fitted N95 mask will be the best approach to lessen exposure to smoke from wildfires, “but by itself cannot eliminate all of the risk,” Dr. Glatter said. Surgical masks can add minimal protection, and cloth masks will not provide any significant protection against the damaging effects of smoke from wildfires.

KN95 masks tend to be more comfortable to wear than N95s. But leakage often occurs that can make this type of protection less effective, Dr. Glatter said.

“Masks are important if you need to go outdoors,” Dr. McCormack said. Also, if you’re traveling by car, set the air conditioning system to recirculate to filter the air inside the vehicle, she recommended.
 

What does that number mean?

The federal government monitors air quality nationwide. In case you’re unfamiliar, the U.S. Air Quality Index includes a color-coded scale for ozone levels and particle pollution, the main concern from wildfire smoke. The lowest risk is the Green or satisfactory air quality category, where air pollution poses little or no risk, with an Index number from 0 to 50.

The index gets progressively more serious, from Yellow for moderate risk (51-100) up to a Maroon category, a hazardous range of 300 or higher on the index. When a Maroon advisory is issued, it means an emergency health warning where “everyone is more likely to be affected.”

How do you know if your outside air is polluted? Your local Air Quality Index (AQI) from the EPA can help. It’s a scale of 0 to 500, and the greater the number, the more harmful pollution in the air. It has six levels: good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. You can find it at AirNow.gov.

New York is under an air quality alert until midnight Friday with a current “unhealthy” Index report of 200. The city recorded its worst-ever air quality on Wednesday. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation warns that fine particulate levels – small particles that can enter a person’s lungs – are the biggest concern.

AirNow.gov warns that western New England down to Washington has air quality in the three worst categories – ranging from unhealthy to very unhealthy and hazardous. The ten worst locations on the U.S. Air Quality Index as of 10 a.m. ET on June 8 include the Wilmington, Del., area with an Index of 241, or “very unhealthy.”

• 244: Suburban Washington/Maryland.
• 252: Southern coastal New Jersey.
• 252: Kent County, Del.
• 270: Philadelphia.
• 291: Greater New Castle County, Del.
• 293: Northern Virginia.
• 293: Metropolitan Washington.

These two locations are in the “hazardous” or health emergency warning category:

• 309: Lehigh Valley, Pa.
• 399: Susquehanna Valley, Pa.

To check an air quality advisory in your area, enter your ZIP code at AirNow.gov.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Anxiety, depression, and COVID-19 can be a bad combination for your brain – and your long-term health.

Having anxiety and depression before a COVID infection increases the risk of developing long COVID, researchers have found. 

Those with long COVID who develop anxiety and depression after an infection may have brain shrinkage in areas that regulate memory, emotion, and other functions as well as disruption of brain connectivity. 

While many questions remain about these intertwined relationships, the associations aren’t a complete surprise. Experts already know that depression and anxiety are associated with inflammation and immune dysfunction, perhaps helping to explain the link between these mental health conditions, the risk of long COVID, and the changes in the brain.

Brain changes accompanying a COVID infection have concerned researchers since earlier in the pandemic, when U.K. Biobank researchers found brain atrophy, loss of grey matter, and decline in cognition in those infected with COVID, compared with those not infected.
 

Common conditions

The ramifications of the research linking anxiety, depression, and long COVID are far-reaching. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12.5% of U.S. adults have regular feelings of anxiety (as well as nervousness and worry), and the latest Gallup Poll found that nearly 18% of adults currently have or are being treated for depression. 

As of May 8, 10% of infected adults in the United States have long COVID, according to the CDC, and among U.S. adults ever infected, 27% have reported long COVID. Long COVID has been defined by the CDC as symptoms such as fatigue, brain fog, and cough that persist longer than 4 weeks and by the World Health Organization as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more. 

Here’s a roundup of what the research shows about mental health and long COVID risk – along with other research finding that paying attention to health habits may reduce that risk. 
 

Pre-existing depression, anxiety, and long COVID risk

A history of mental health issues – including depression, anxiety, worry, perceived stress, and loneliness – raises the risk of long COVID if infection occurs, Harvard researchers have found.

The researchers evaluated data from three large, ongoing studies including nearly 55,000 participants to determine the effects of high levels of psychological distress before a COVID infection. 

“Our study was purely survey based,” said Siwen Wang, MD, the study’s lead author and a research fellow at Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

At the start of the survey in April 2020, none of the participants reported a current or previous COVID infection. They answered surveys about psychological distress at the start of the study, at 6 monthly time points, then quarterly until November 2021.

Over the follow up, 3,193 people reported a positive COVID test and 43% of those, or 1,403, developed long COVID. That number may seem high, but 38% of the 55,000 were active health care workers. On the final questionnaire, they reported whether their symptoms persisted for 4 weeks or longer and thus had long COVID by the standard CDC definition.

Dr. Wang’s team then looked at the infected participants’ psychological status. Anxiety raised the risk of long COVID by 42%, depression by 32%, worry about COVID by 37%, perceived stress, 46%, and loneliness, 32%.

COVID patients with a history of depression or anxiety are also more likely than others to report trouble with cognition in the weeks after a COVID infection and to develop brain fog and long COVID, UCLA researchers found. They evaluated 766 people with a confirmed COVID infection; 36% said their thinking was affected within 4 weeks of the infection. Those with anxiety and depression were more likely to report those difficulties.
 

Long COVID, then anxiety, depression, brain changes

Even mild cases of COVID infection can lead to long COVID and brain changes in those who suffer anxiety or depression after the infection, according to Clarissa Yasuda, MD, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Campinas in Sao Paulo. She has researched long COVID’s effects on the brain, even as she is coping with being a long COVID patient.

In one of her studies, presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, she found brain changes in people with anxiety, depression, and COVID but not in those infected who did not have either mental health issue. She evaluated 254 people, median age 41, after about 82 days from their positive PCR test for COVID.  Everyone completed a standard questionnaire for depression (the Beck Depression Inventory) and another for anxiety (the Beck Anxiety Inventory). She further divided them into two groups – the 102 with symptoms and the 152 who had no symptoms of either depression or anxiety. 

Brain scans showed those with COVID who also had anxiety and depression had shrinkage in the limbic area of the brain (which helps process emotion and memory), while those infected who didn’t have anxiety or depression did not. The researchers then scanned the brains of 148 healthy people without COVID and found no shrinkage.

The atrophy, Dr. Yasuda said, “is not something you can see with your eyes. It was only detected with computer analysis. Visualization on an MRI is normal.”

The number of people in this study with mental health issues was surprisingly high, Dr. Yasuda said. “It was intriguing for us that we noticed many individuals have both symptoms, anxiety and depression. We were not expecting it at that proportion.”

The researchers found a pattern of change not only in brain structure but in brain communication. They found those changes by using specialized software to analyze brain networks in some of the participants. Those with anxiety and depression had widespread functional changes in each of 12 networks tested. The participants without mental health symptoms showed changes in just five networks. These changes are enough to lead to problems with thinking skills and memory, Dr. Yasuda said.
 

Explaining the links

Several ideas have been proposed to explain the link between psychological distress and long COVID risk, Dr. Wang said. “The first and most mainstream mechanism for long COVID is chronic inflammation and immune dysregulation. Several mental health conditions, such as anxiety and depression, are associated with inflammation and dysfunction and that might be the link between depression, anxiety, and long COVID.”

Another less mainstream hypothesis, she said, is that “those with long COVID have more autoantibodies and they are more likely to have blood clotting issues. These have also been found in people with anxiety, depression, or other psychological distress.”

Other researchers are looking more broadly at how COVID infections affect the brain. When German researchers evaluated the brain and other body parts of 20 patients who died from non-COVID causes but had documented COVID infections, they found that 12 had accumulations of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain tissue as well as the skull and meninges, the membranes that line the skull and spinal cord. Healthy controls did not. 

The findings suggest the persistence of the spike protein may contribute to the long-term neurologic symptoms of long COVID and may also lead to understanding of the molecular mechanisms as well as therapies for long COVID, the researchers said in their preprint report, which has not yet been peer reviewed. 

In another recent study, researchers from Germany performed neuroimaging and neuropsychological assessments of 223 people who were not vaccinated and recovered from mild to moderate COVID infections, comparing them with 223 matched healthy controls who had the same testing. In those infected, they found alterations in the cerebral white matter but no worse cognitive function in the first year after recovering. They conclude that the infection triggers a prolonged neuroinflammatory response. 

Can the brain changes reverse? “We don’t have an answer right now, but we are working on that,” Dr. Yasuda said. For now, she speculates about the return of brain volume: “I think for most it will. But I think we need to treat the symptoms. We can’t disregard the symptoms of long COVID. People are suffering a lot, and this suffering is causing some brain damage.”
 

Lifestyle habits and risk of long COVID

Meanwhile, healthy lifestyle habits in those infected can reduce the risk of long COVID, research by Dr. Wang and colleagues found. They followed nearly 2,000 women with a positive COVID test over 19 months. Of these, 44%, or 871, developed long COVID. Compared with women who followed none of the healthy lifestyle habits evaluated, those with five to six of the habits had a 49% lower risk of long COVID.

The habits included: a healthy body mass index (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), never smoking, at least 150 minutes weekly of moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate alcohol intake (5-15 grams a day), high diet quality, and good sleep (7-9 hours nightly).
 

Long-term solutions 

Dr. Yasuda hopes that mental health care – of those infected and those not – will be taken more seriously. In a commentary on her own long COVID experience, she wrote, in part: “I fear for the numerous survivors of COVID-19 who do not have access to medical attention for their post-COVID symptoms. ... The mental health system needs to become prepared to receive survivors with different neuropsychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression.” 

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

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Around 50% of patients develop an infection in the final months, weeks, or days before their deaths. Diagnosing an infection is complex because of the presence of symptoms that are often nonspecific and that are common in patients in decline toward the end of life. Use of antibiotic therapy in this patient population is still controversial, because the clinical benefits are not clear and the risk of pointless overmedicalization is very high.

Etiology

For patients who are receiving palliative care, the following factors predispose to an infection:

• Increasing fragility.
• Bedbound status and anorexia/cachexia syndrome.
• Weakened immune defenses owing to disease or treatments.
• Changes to skin integrity, related to venous access sites and/or bladder catheterization.

Four-week cutoff

For patients who are expected to live for fewer than 4 weeks, evidence from the literature shows that antimicrobial therapy does not resolve a potential infection or improve the prognosis. Antibiotics should therefore be used only for improving symptom management.

In practice, the most common infections in patients receiving end-of-life care are in the urinary and respiratory tracts. Antibiotics are beneficial in the short term in managing symptoms associated with urinary tract infections (effective in 60%-92% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death.

Antibiotics are also beneficial in managing symptoms associated with respiratory tract infections (effective in up to 53% of cases), so they should be considered if the patient is not in the agonal or pre-agonal phase of death. However, the risk of futility is high. As an alternative, opioids and antitussives could provide greater benefit for patients with dyspnea and cough.

No benefit has been observed with the use of antibiotics to treat symptoms associated with sepsis, abscesses, and deep and complicated infections. Antibiotics are therefore deemed futile in these cases.

In unclear cases, the “2-day rule” is useful. This involves waiting for 2 days, and if the patient remains clinically stable, prescribing antibiotics. If the patient’s condition deteriorates rapidly and progressively, antibiotics should not be prescribed.

Alternatively, one can prescribe antibiotics immediately. If no clinical improvement is observed after 2 days, the antibiotics should be stopped, especially if deterioration of the patient’s condition is rapid and progressive.

Increased body temperature is somewhat common in the last days and hours of life and is not generally associated with symptoms. Fever in these cases is not an indication for the use of antimicrobial therapy.

The most common laboratory markers of infection (C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, leukocyte level) are not particularly useful in this patient population, because they are affected by the baseline condition as well as by any treatments given and the state of systemic inflammation, which is associated with the decline in overall health in the last few weeks of life.

The choice should be individualized and shared with patients and family members so that the clinical appropriateness of the therapeutic strategy is evident and that decisions regarding antibiotic treatment are not regarded as a failure to treat the patient.
 

The longer term

In deciding to start antibiotic therapy, consideration must be given to the patient’s overall health, the treatment objectives, the possibility that the antibiotic will resolve the infection or improve the patient’s symptoms, and the estimated prognosis, which must be sufficiently long to allow the antibiotic time to take effect.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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

In late 2021, the Rome Proposal for diagnosing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and grading their severity was published. The 2023 Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report has adopted the Rome Proposal criteria. Given that an endorsement by GOLD is tantamount to acceptance by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers alike, I guess we’re all using them now.

Anyone who’s ever cared for patients with COPD knows that treatment and reduction of exacerbations is how we improve outcomes. AECOPD are associated with considerable morbidity, greater health care utilization and costs, and a long-term decline in lung function. While we hope our pharmacotherapies improve symptoms, we know they reduce AECOPD. If our pharmacotherapies have any impact on mortality, it’s probably via AECOPD prevention.

Methods for reducing AECOPD are not controversial, but the approach to AECOPD treatment is, particularly decisions about who gets an antibiotic and who doesn’t. Since antibiotic indications are tied to severity, using the Rome Proposal criteria may affect management in unpredictable ways. As such, it’s worth reviewing the data on antibiotics for AECOPD.
 

What do the data reveal?

To start, it’s important to note that GOLD doesn’t equate having an AECOPD with needing an antibiotic. I myself have conflated the diagnosis with the indication and thereby overprescribed. The bar for diagnosis is quite low. In previous GOLD summaries, any “change in respiratory symptoms” would warrant the AECOPD label. Although the Rome Proposal definition is more specific, it leaves room for liberal interpretation. It’s likely to have a greater effect on research than on clinical practice. My guess is that AECOPD prevalence doesn’t change.

The antibiotic hurdle is slightly higher than that for diagnosis but is equally open to interpretation. In part, that’s related to the inherent subjectivity of judging symptoms, sputum production, and changes in color, but it’s also because the data are so poor. The meta-analyses that have been used to establish the indications include fewer than 1000 patients spread across 10 to 11 trials. Thus, the individual trials are small, and the sample size remains nominal even after adding them together. The addition of antibiotics – and it doesn’t seem to matter which class, type, or duration – will decrease mortality and hospital length of stay. One study says these effects are limited to inpatients while the other does not. After reading GOLD 2013, GOLD 2023, and both the meta-analyses they used to support their recommendations, I’m still not sure who benefits. Do you have to be hospitalized? Is some sort of ventilatory support required? Does C-reactive protein help or not?

In accordance with the classic Anthonisen criteria, GOLD relies on sputum volume and color as evidence of a bacterial infection. Soon after GOLD 2023 was published, a meta-analysis found that sputum color isn’t particularly accurate for detecting bacterial infection. Because it doesn’t seem to matter which antibiotic class is used, I always thought we were using antibiotics for their magical, pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects anyway. I didn’t think the presence of an actual bacterial infection was important. If I saw an infiltrate on chest x-ray, I’d change my diagnosis from AECOPD to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and switch to CAP coverage. I’ve been doing this so long that I swear it’s in a guideline somewhere, though admittedly I couldn’t find said guideline while reading for this piece.
 

Key takeaways

In summary, I believe that the guidance reflects the data, which is muddy. The Rome Proposal should be seen as just that – a framework for moving forward with AECOPD classification and antibiotic indications that will need to be refined over time as better data become available. In fact, they allow for a more objective, point-of-care assessment of severity that can be validated and tied to antibiotic benefits. The Rome criteria aren’t evidence-based; they’re a necessary first step toward creating the evidence.

In the meantime, if your AECOPD patients are hospitalized, they probably warrant an antibiotic. If they’re not, sputum changes may be a reasonable surrogate for a bacterial infection. Considerable uncertainty remains.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

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