CHEST Physician

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 pandemic, lasting symptoms are becoming quite common, with residents of certain states, women, Hispanic people, and transgender people more at risk, a new report shows. 

More than one in four adults sickened by the virus go on to have long COVID, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau. Overall, nearly 15% of all American adults – more than 38 million people nationwide – have had long COVID at some point since the start of the pandemic, according to the report. 

The report, based on survey data collected between March 1 and 13, defines long COVID as symptoms lasting at least 3 months that people didn’t have before getting infected with the virus. 

It is the second recent look at who is most likely to face long COVID. A similar study, published in March, found that women, smokers, and those who had severe COVID-19 infections are most likely to have the disorder

The Census Bureau report found that while 27% of adults nationwide have had long COVID after getting infected with the virus, the condition has impacted some states more than others. The proportion of residents hit with long COVID ranged from a low of 18.8% in New Jersey to a high of 40.7% in West Virginia. 

Other states with long COVID rates well below the national average include Alaska, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin. At the other end of the spectrum, the states with rates well above the national average include Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Long COVID rates also varied by age, gender, and race. People in their 50s were most at risk, with about 31% of those infected by the virus going on to have long COVID, followed by those in their 40s, at more than 29%. 

Far more women (almost 33%) than men (21%) with COVID infections got long COVID. And when researchers looked at long COVID rates based on gender identity, they found that transgender adults were more than twice as likely to have long COVID than cisgender males. Bisexual adults also had much higher long COVID rates than straight, gay, or lesbian people. 

Long COVID was also much more common among Hispanic adults, affecting almost 29% of those infected with the virus, than among White or Black people, who had long COVID rates similar to the national average of 27%. Asian adults had lower long COVID rates than the national average, at less than 20%.

People with disabilities were also at higher risk, with long COVID rates of almost 47%, compared with 24% among adults without disabilities.
 

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 pandemic, lasting symptoms are becoming quite common, with residents of certain states, women, Hispanic people, and transgender people more at risk, a new report shows. 

More than one in four adults sickened by the virus go on to have long COVID, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau. Overall, nearly 15% of all American adults – more than 38 million people nationwide – have had long COVID at some point since the start of the pandemic, according to the report. 

The report, based on survey data collected between March 1 and 13, defines long COVID as symptoms lasting at least 3 months that people didn’t have before getting infected with the virus. 

It is the second recent look at who is most likely to face long COVID. A similar study, published in March, found that women, smokers, and those who had severe COVID-19 infections are most likely to have the disorder

The Census Bureau report found that while 27% of adults nationwide have had long COVID after getting infected with the virus, the condition has impacted some states more than others. The proportion of residents hit with long COVID ranged from a low of 18.8% in New Jersey to a high of 40.7% in West Virginia. 

Other states with long COVID rates well below the national average include Alaska, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin. At the other end of the spectrum, the states with rates well above the national average include Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Long COVID rates also varied by age, gender, and race. People in their 50s were most at risk, with about 31% of those infected by the virus going on to have long COVID, followed by those in their 40s, at more than 29%. 

Far more women (almost 33%) than men (21%) with COVID infections got long COVID. And when researchers looked at long COVID rates based on gender identity, they found that transgender adults were more than twice as likely to have long COVID than cisgender males. Bisexual adults also had much higher long COVID rates than straight, gay, or lesbian people. 

Long COVID was also much more common among Hispanic adults, affecting almost 29% of those infected with the virus, than among White or Black people, who had long COVID rates similar to the national average of 27%. Asian adults had lower long COVID rates than the national average, at less than 20%.

People with disabilities were also at higher risk, with long COVID rates of almost 47%, compared with 24% among adults without disabilities.
 

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

More than 3 years into the COVID-19 pandemic, lasting symptoms are becoming quite common, with residents of certain states, women, Hispanic people, and transgender people more at risk, a new report shows. 

More than one in four adults sickened by the virus go on to have long COVID, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau. Overall, nearly 15% of all American adults – more than 38 million people nationwide – have had long COVID at some point since the start of the pandemic, according to the report. 

The report, based on survey data collected between March 1 and 13, defines long COVID as symptoms lasting at least 3 months that people didn’t have before getting infected with the virus. 

It is the second recent look at who is most likely to face long COVID. A similar study, published in March, found that women, smokers, and those who had severe COVID-19 infections are most likely to have the disorder

The Census Bureau report found that while 27% of adults nationwide have had long COVID after getting infected with the virus, the condition has impacted some states more than others. The proportion of residents hit with long COVID ranged from a low of 18.8% in New Jersey to a high of 40.7% in West Virginia. 

Other states with long COVID rates well below the national average include Alaska, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin. At the other end of the spectrum, the states with rates well above the national average include Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Long COVID rates also varied by age, gender, and race. People in their 50s were most at risk, with about 31% of those infected by the virus going on to have long COVID, followed by those in their 40s, at more than 29%. 

Far more women (almost 33%) than men (21%) with COVID infections got long COVID. And when researchers looked at long COVID rates based on gender identity, they found that transgender adults were more than twice as likely to have long COVID than cisgender males. Bisexual adults also had much higher long COVID rates than straight, gay, or lesbian people. 

Long COVID was also much more common among Hispanic adults, affecting almost 29% of those infected with the virus, than among White or Black people, who had long COVID rates similar to the national average of 27%. Asian adults had lower long COVID rates than the national average, at less than 20%.

People with disabilities were also at higher risk, with long COVID rates of almost 47%, compared with 24% among adults without disabilities.
 

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

Disordered sleep is associated with a significantly increased risk for stroke, new research shows.

Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.

Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

More symptoms, more risk

Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.

“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.

For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.

Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.

Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.

Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).

Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).

“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.

“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
 

A marker of stroke risk

Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.

“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.

Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.

One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.

“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.

The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disordered sleep is associated with a significantly increased risk for stroke, new research shows.

Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.

Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

More symptoms, more risk

Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.

“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.

For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.

Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.

Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.

Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).

Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).

“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.

“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
 

A marker of stroke risk

Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.

“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.

Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.

One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.

“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.

The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disordered sleep is associated with a significantly increased risk for stroke, new research shows.

Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.

The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.

Jupiterimages/Thinkstock

More symptoms, more risk

Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.

“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.

For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.

Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.

Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.

Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).

Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).

“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.

“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
 

A marker of stroke risk

Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.

“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.

Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.

One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.

“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.

The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

A new analysis suggests that the initial target of therapy – lung or brain – doesn’t affect overall survival rates in patients with non–small cell lung cancer that has spread to the brain.

“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.

“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”

However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”

For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)

“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.

He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”

Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”

He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

At a single robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy center, patients with public insurance or combined public and private insurance fared worse than those with private insurance, according to a new retrospective analysis.

The study used public insurance status as a marker for low socioeconomic status (SES) and suggests that patients with combined insurance may constitute a separate population that deserves more attention.

Lower SES has been linked to later stage diagnoses and worse outcomes in NSCLC. Private insurance is a generally-accepted indicator of higher SES, while public insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, alone or in combination with private supplementary insurance, is an indicator of lower SES.

Although previous studies have found associations between patients having public health insurance and experiencing later-stage diagnoses and worse overall survival, there have been few studies of surgical outcomes, and almost no research has examined combination health insurance, according to Allison O. Dumitriu Carcoana, who presented the research during a poster session at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

“This is an important insurance subgroup for us because the majority of our patients fall into this subgroup by being over 65 years old and thus qualifying for Medicare while also paying for a private supplement,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana, who is a medical student at University of South Florida Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa.

A previous analysis by the group found an association between private insurance status and better discharge status, as well as higher 5-year overall survival. After accumulating an additional 278 patients, the researchers examined 10-year survival outcomes.

In the new analysis, 52% of 711 participants had combination insurance, while 28% had private insurance, and 20% had public insurance. The subgroups all had similar demographic and histological characteristics. The study was unique in that it found no between-group differences in higher stage at diagnosis, whereas previous studies have found a greater risk of higher stage diagnosis among individuals with public insurance. As expected, patients in the combined insurance group had a higher mean age (P less than .0001) and higher Charlson comorbidity index scores (P = .0014), which in turn was associated with lower 10-year survival. The group also had the highest percentage of former smokers, while the public insurance group had the highest percentage of current smokers (P = .0003).

At both 5 and 10 years, the private insurance group had better OS than the group with public (P less than .001) and the combination insurance group (P = .08). Public health insurance was associated with worse OS at 5 years (hazard ratio, 1.83; P less than .005) but not at 10 years (HR, 1.18; P = .51), while combination insurance was associated with worse OS at 10 years (HR, 1.72; P = .02).

“We think that patients with public health insurance having the worst 5-year overall survival, despite their lower ages and fewer comorbid conditions, compared with patients with combination insurance, highlights the impact of lower socioeconomic status on health outcomes. These patients had the same tumor characteristics, BMI, sex, and race as our patients in the other two insurance groups. The only other significant risk factor [the group had besides having a higher proportion of patients with lower socioeconomic status was that it had a higher proportion of current smokers]. But the multivariate analyses showed that insurance status was an independent predictor of survival, regardless of smoking status or other comorbidities,” said Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana.

“At 10 years post-operatively, the survival curves have shifted and the combination patients had the worst 10-year overall survival. We attribute this to their higher number of comorbid conditions and increased age. In practice, [this means that] the group of patients with public insurance type, but no supplement, should be identified clinically, and the clinical team can initiate a discussion,” Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana said.

“Do these patients feel that they can make follow-up appointments, keep up with medication costs, and make the right lifestyle decisions postoperatively on their current insurance plan? If not, can they afford a private supplement? In our cohort specifically, it may also be important to do more preoperative counseling on the importance of smoking cessation,” she added.

The study is interesting, but it has some important limitations, according to Raja Flores, MD, who was not involved with the study. The authors stated that there was no difference between the insurance groups with respect to mortality or cancer stage, which is the most important predictor of survival. However, the poster didn't include details of the authors' analysis, making it difficult to interpret, Dr. Flores said.

The fact that the study includes a single surgeon has some disadvantages in terms of broader applicability, but it also controls for surgical technique. “Different surgeons have different ways of doing things, so if you had the same surgeon doing it the same way every time, you can look at other variables like insurance (status) and stage,” said Dr. Flores.

The results may also provide an argument against using robotic surgery in patients who do not have insurance, especially since they have not been proven to be better than standard minimally invasive surgery with no robotic assistance. With uninsured patients, “you’re using taxpayer money for a more expensive procedure that isn’t proving to be any better,” Dr. Flores explained.

The study was performed at a single center and cannot prove causation due to its retrospective nature.

Ms. Dumitriu Carcoana and Dr. Flores have no relevant financial disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/13/2023.

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.

A comparison of Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the field of thoracic cancer found significantly longer approval times at the European agency, as well as some examples of different perspectives on biomarkers.

The findings of this new study suggest that patients in Europe may face delayed access to new therapies, the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.

They also noted that some FDA approvals occurred before pivotal trial data became available, which can leave doubt about efficacy.

“Effective cancer management relies on availability of therapies which improve patient outcomes, such as immunotherapy. The two largest regulators involved in approving immunotherapies are the FDA and the EMA and therefore we aimed to compare the approval timings between both to see if a difference in approval timings was present,” coauthor Aakash Desai, MD, said in an interview.

Previously, the researchers conducted a study of cancer approval patterns at the FDA and EMA between 2010 and 2019, and found U.S. patients gain access to new cancer therapeutics more quickly than do European patients. Of 89 new therapies approved in that time span, the FDA approval occurred first in 85 cases (95%), though just 72% were submitted to FDA first. The median increased time it took for EMA approval compared with the FDA was 241 days. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. approvals came before the publication of the pivotal clinical trial, versus 9% of EMA approvals.

The new study focuses on thoracic oncology, where lung cancer is the leading cause of death. “As such, prompt approval timings for immunotherapies are crucial for effective treatment. Furthermore, lung cancer immunotherapies target certain biomarkers, of which, PD1 and PD-L1 are key,” said Dr. Desai, a fellow at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Still, Dr. Desai sounded a note of caution. “Just because a therapy is approved more quickly does not necessarily mean it is efficacious, as the clinical trials involving these drugs may not have been completed or fully reported at the time of authorization. [Drug developers] need to have a more global and coordinated approach to evaluating evidence and approval of drugs so the care received by a particular patient is not a factor of where they live,” he said.

The researchers surveyed approvals of seven immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) approved by both the FDA and the EMA for thoracic malignancies, including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), and mesothelioma. The FDA approved 22 indications for the novel ICIs in thoracic malignancies, compared with 16 indications at the EMA. The difference in median approval times was larger for SCLC (179 versus 308 days) and mesothelioma (39 versus 280 days) than for NSCLC (242 versus 272 days).

“There are two discrepancies in biomarker requirements between the FDA and EMA, whereby the FDA has a broader requirement, despite these being ranked fairly consistently in terms of evidence of benefit by [European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale and National Comprehensive Cancer Network] frameworks,” said Dr. Desai. In the case of atezolizumab for adjuvant NSCLC, the FDA required PDL1 levels of 1% or higher, while the EMA required 50% or higher. For durvalumab in unresectable NSCLC, the FDA had no PDL1 requirement, while the EMA required 1% or higher.

Dr. Desai suggested a need for further investigation into the differences between the two agencies. Asked why the two agencies might have different views on the biomarkers, Dr. Desai responded: “That is the million-dollar question. My guess is [the] EMA weighs subgroup data more than [the] FDA.”

Dr. Desai has no relevant financial disclosures.

The overnight shift in the MCU began as it does for many intensivists, by hearing about ED admissions, transfers from outside hospitals, sick floor patients, and high-risk patients in the MICU. Earlier in the day, the MICU team had admitted a 39-year-old woman with a severe asthma attack that required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation in the ED for hypercarbic respiratory failure. After intubation, she had no audible air movement on chest exam, severe hypercarbic respiratory acidosis determined by an arterial blood gas, a clear chest radiograph, and negative findings on a respiratory viral panel. Her family said that she had run out of her steroid inhaler a month earlier and could not afford a refill. She had been using increasing amounts of albuterol over the past week before developing severe shortness of breath on the day of admission. The ED and MICU teams aggressively treated her with high-dose inhaled albuterol, ipratropium, and IV magnesium sulfate for bronchodilation; methylprednisolone for airway inflammation; and continuous ketamine for sedation, analgesia, and bronchodilation (Rehder KJ, et al. Respir Care. 2017;62[6]:849). Her airway pressures continued to be high despite using lung protective ventilation, so she was shifted to a permissive hypercapnia ventilation strategy using neuromuscular blockade, deep sedation, and low minute-ventilation (Laher AE, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33[9]:491).

CHEST

Two hours into the shift, the bedside nurse noted that the patient had become hypotensive. Her ventilator pressures remained stable with peak inspiratory pressures of 38-42 cm H₂O, plateau pressures of 28-30 cm H₂O, auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP) of 10-12 cm H₂O, and fractional inspiratory oxygen (FiO₂) of 40%. A repeat chest radiograph showed no signs of barotrauma, but arterial blood gas values showed severe respiratory acidosis with a pH of 7.05 and a PCO₂ > 100 mm Hg. Her condition stabilized when she received a continuous infusion of bicarbonate to control her acidosis and low-dose IV norepinephrine for blood pressure control. It was at that moment that the bedside nurse astutely asked whether we should consider starting ECMO for the patient, as coauthor Dr. Arun Kannappan had done for a similar patient with asthma a month earlier. Dr. Vandivier notes, “My first response was that ECMO was not needed, because our patient had stabilized, and I had taken care of many patients like this in the past. But as I considered the situation more carefully, it was clear that any further decompensation could put our patient’s life at risk by not leaving enough time to start ECMO in a controlled setting. In short, my ‘traditional’ approach left little room for error in a patient with high ventilator pressures and hemodynamic instability.”

CHEST

ECMO is a technique used to add oxygen or remove CO₂ from the blood of people with different forms of respiratory failure (Fan E, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2016;2:712) that was first used by Hill and colleagues in 1966 for trauma-induced ARDS (Hill JD, et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:629). The ECMO circuit pumps blood from the venous system into an oxygenator that adds oxygen and removes CO₂ before blood is returned to either the venous or arterial circulation (Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:712). Venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) is used in clinical scenarios where only oxygenation and/or CO₂ removal is needed, whereas venoarterial ECMO (vaECMO) is reserved for situations where additional hemodynamic support is necessary. ECMO is traditionally thought of as a means to increase blood oxygenation, but it is less widely appreciated that ECMO is particularly effective at removing blood CO₂. In addition to ECMO helping to normalize oxygenation or eliminate CO₂, it can also be used to lower tidal volumes, decrease airway pressures, and allow “lungs to rest” with the goal of avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

CHEST

Standing at the bedside, it seemed to the authors that it was the right time to think about instituting a salvage therapy. But was there evidence that ECMO could improve survival? Were there clear guidelines for when to initiate ECMO, and was ECMO more effective than other salvage therapies such as inhaled volatile anesthetics?

Since McDonnell and colleagues first described the use of ECMO for a severe asthma exacerbation in 1981 (Ann Thoracic Surg. 1981;31[2]:171), about 95 articles have been published. Other than two registry studies and a recent epidemiologic study, all of these publications were case reports, case series, and reviews. Mikkelsen and colleagues (ASAIO J. 2009;55[1]:47) performed a retrospective, cohort study using the International Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) Organization Registry to determine whether ECMO use for status asthmaticus was associated with greater survival than the use of ECMO for other causes of respiratory failure. From 1986 through 2006, a total of 2,127 cases of respiratory failure were identified that required ECMO, including 27 for status asthmaticus and 1,233 for other causes. Their analysis showed that 83.3% of asthmatics treated with ECMO survived to hospital discharge, compared with 50.8% of people treated with ECMO for respiratory failure not due to asthma, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.86 favoring survival of asthmatics (OR = 4.86; 95% CI, 1.65-14.31, P = .004).

Yeo and colleagues (Yeo HJ, et al. Critical Care. 2017;21:297) also used the ECLS Organization Registry to measure survival to hospital discharge, complications, and clinical factors associated with in-hospital mortality for asthmatics treated with ECMO. They included 272 people treated with ECMO for asthma between 1992 and 2016, after excluding people treated with ECMO for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or cardiac dysfunction. ECMO was associated with improvements in ventilator mechanics, including a reduction in respiratory rate, FiO₂, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and driving pressure. Use of ECMO for status asthmaticus was also associated with an 83.5% survival to hospital discharge, similar to the study by Mikkelsen and colleagues. Hemorrhage, the most common complication, occurred in roughly a quarter of people treated with ECMO. In the multivariate analysis, age, bleeding, pre-ECMO PEEP, post-ECMO FiO₂, and driving pressure were all associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Although there are no formal criteria to guide use of ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, a number of physicians and a physician organization have recommended that ECMO be considered for persistently high ventilator pressures, uncontrolled respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic instability. Because our patient qualified for ECMO based on all three suggested criteria, we consulted cardiac surgery who quickly started her on vvECMO. She remained on ECMO for 4 days until she was decannulated, extubated, and discharged home.

Despite this positive outcome, the lack of a high-quality, controlled study to help guide our decision was surprising given the ability of ECMO to efficiently remove CO₂ and to decrease ventilator pressures. The lack of guidance prompted us to perform a retrospective, epidemiologic cohort study to determine whether treatment with ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure was associated with reduced mortality, compared with people treated without ECMO (Zakrajsek JK, Chest. 2023;163[1]:38). The study included 13,714 people admitted to an ECMO-capable hospital with respiratory failure that required invasive ventilation because of an asthma exacerbation between 2010 and 2020, of which 127 were treated with ECMO and 13,587 were not. During this period, use of ECMO as a salvage therapy for severe asthma exacerbations was a rare event, but it became more common over time. With the limitation that 40% of asthma patients were transferred from an outside hospital, 74% were started on ECMO in the first 2 hospital days, and 94% were started within the first week of hospitalization. Once started, ECMO was continued for a median of 1.0 day and range of 1-49 days. Hospital mortality was 14.6% in the ECMO group versus 26.2% in the no ECMO group, which equated to an 11.6% absolute risk reduction (P = 0.03) and 52% relative risk reduction (P = 0.04) in mortality. ECMO was associated with hospital costs that were $114,000 higher per patient, compared with the no ECMO group, but did not affect intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, or time on invasive mechanical ventilation.

We were pleased that our patient had a good outcome, and were reassured by our study results. But we were left to wonder whether ECMO really was the best salvage therapy for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, and if it was initiated for the right indications at the best time. These are important treatment considerations that take on new urgency given that physicians are increasingly looking to ECMO as a salvage therapy for refractory asthma, and the recent FDA approval of low-flow, extracorporeal CO₂ removal systems that could make CO₂ removal a more available, and perhaps less expensive, strategy. Despite promising epidemiological data, it will be important that these questions are answered with well-designed clinical trials so that physicians can be armed with the knowledge needed to navigate complex clinical scenarios, and ultimately to prevent unfortunate deaths from a reversible disease.

The overnight shift in the MCU began as it does for many intensivists, by hearing about ED admissions, transfers from outside hospitals, sick floor patients, and high-risk patients in the MICU. Earlier in the day, the MICU team had admitted a 39-year-old woman with a severe asthma attack that required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation in the ED for hypercarbic respiratory failure. After intubation, she had no audible air movement on chest exam, severe hypercarbic respiratory acidosis determined by an arterial blood gas, a clear chest radiograph, and negative findings on a respiratory viral panel. Her family said that she had run out of her steroid inhaler a month earlier and could not afford a refill. She had been using increasing amounts of albuterol over the past week before developing severe shortness of breath on the day of admission. The ED and MICU teams aggressively treated her with high-dose inhaled albuterol, ipratropium, and IV magnesium sulfate for bronchodilation; methylprednisolone for airway inflammation; and continuous ketamine for sedation, analgesia, and bronchodilation (Rehder KJ, et al. Respir Care. 2017;62[6]:849). Her airway pressures continued to be high despite using lung protective ventilation, so she was shifted to a permissive hypercapnia ventilation strategy using neuromuscular blockade, deep sedation, and low minute-ventilation (Laher AE, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33[9]:491).

CHEST

Two hours into the shift, the bedside nurse noted that the patient had become hypotensive. Her ventilator pressures remained stable with peak inspiratory pressures of 38-42 cm H₂O, plateau pressures of 28-30 cm H₂O, auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP) of 10-12 cm H₂O, and fractional inspiratory oxygen (FiO₂) of 40%. A repeat chest radiograph showed no signs of barotrauma, but arterial blood gas values showed severe respiratory acidosis with a pH of 7.05 and a PCO₂ > 100 mm Hg. Her condition stabilized when she received a continuous infusion of bicarbonate to control her acidosis and low-dose IV norepinephrine for blood pressure control. It was at that moment that the bedside nurse astutely asked whether we should consider starting ECMO for the patient, as coauthor Dr. Arun Kannappan had done for a similar patient with asthma a month earlier. Dr. Vandivier notes, “My first response was that ECMO was not needed, because our patient had stabilized, and I had taken care of many patients like this in the past. But as I considered the situation more carefully, it was clear that any further decompensation could put our patient’s life at risk by not leaving enough time to start ECMO in a controlled setting. In short, my ‘traditional’ approach left little room for error in a patient with high ventilator pressures and hemodynamic instability.”

CHEST

ECMO is a technique used to add oxygen or remove CO₂ from the blood of people with different forms of respiratory failure (Fan E, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2016;2:712) that was first used by Hill and colleagues in 1966 for trauma-induced ARDS (Hill JD, et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:629). The ECMO circuit pumps blood from the venous system into an oxygenator that adds oxygen and removes CO₂ before blood is returned to either the venous or arterial circulation (Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:712). Venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) is used in clinical scenarios where only oxygenation and/or CO₂ removal is needed, whereas venoarterial ECMO (vaECMO) is reserved for situations where additional hemodynamic support is necessary. ECMO is traditionally thought of as a means to increase blood oxygenation, but it is less widely appreciated that ECMO is particularly effective at removing blood CO₂. In addition to ECMO helping to normalize oxygenation or eliminate CO₂, it can also be used to lower tidal volumes, decrease airway pressures, and allow “lungs to rest” with the goal of avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

CHEST

Standing at the bedside, it seemed to the authors that it was the right time to think about instituting a salvage therapy. But was there evidence that ECMO could improve survival? Were there clear guidelines for when to initiate ECMO, and was ECMO more effective than other salvage therapies such as inhaled volatile anesthetics?

Since McDonnell and colleagues first described the use of ECMO for a severe asthma exacerbation in 1981 (Ann Thoracic Surg. 1981;31[2]:171), about 95 articles have been published. Other than two registry studies and a recent epidemiologic study, all of these publications were case reports, case series, and reviews. Mikkelsen and colleagues (ASAIO J. 2009;55[1]:47) performed a retrospective, cohort study using the International Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) Organization Registry to determine whether ECMO use for status asthmaticus was associated with greater survival than the use of ECMO for other causes of respiratory failure. From 1986 through 2006, a total of 2,127 cases of respiratory failure were identified that required ECMO, including 27 for status asthmaticus and 1,233 for other causes. Their analysis showed that 83.3% of asthmatics treated with ECMO survived to hospital discharge, compared with 50.8% of people treated with ECMO for respiratory failure not due to asthma, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.86 favoring survival of asthmatics (OR = 4.86; 95% CI, 1.65-14.31, P = .004).

Yeo and colleagues (Yeo HJ, et al. Critical Care. 2017;21:297) also used the ECLS Organization Registry to measure survival to hospital discharge, complications, and clinical factors associated with in-hospital mortality for asthmatics treated with ECMO. They included 272 people treated with ECMO for asthma between 1992 and 2016, after excluding people treated with ECMO for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or cardiac dysfunction. ECMO was associated with improvements in ventilator mechanics, including a reduction in respiratory rate, FiO₂, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and driving pressure. Use of ECMO for status asthmaticus was also associated with an 83.5% survival to hospital discharge, similar to the study by Mikkelsen and colleagues. Hemorrhage, the most common complication, occurred in roughly a quarter of people treated with ECMO. In the multivariate analysis, age, bleeding, pre-ECMO PEEP, post-ECMO FiO₂, and driving pressure were all associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Although there are no formal criteria to guide use of ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, a number of physicians and a physician organization have recommended that ECMO be considered for persistently high ventilator pressures, uncontrolled respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic instability. Because our patient qualified for ECMO based on all three suggested criteria, we consulted cardiac surgery who quickly started her on vvECMO. She remained on ECMO for 4 days until she was decannulated, extubated, and discharged home.

Despite this positive outcome, the lack of a high-quality, controlled study to help guide our decision was surprising given the ability of ECMO to efficiently remove CO₂ and to decrease ventilator pressures. The lack of guidance prompted us to perform a retrospective, epidemiologic cohort study to determine whether treatment with ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure was associated with reduced mortality, compared with people treated without ECMO (Zakrajsek JK, Chest. 2023;163[1]:38). The study included 13,714 people admitted to an ECMO-capable hospital with respiratory failure that required invasive ventilation because of an asthma exacerbation between 2010 and 2020, of which 127 were treated with ECMO and 13,587 were not. During this period, use of ECMO as a salvage therapy for severe asthma exacerbations was a rare event, but it became more common over time. With the limitation that 40% of asthma patients were transferred from an outside hospital, 74% were started on ECMO in the first 2 hospital days, and 94% were started within the first week of hospitalization. Once started, ECMO was continued for a median of 1.0 day and range of 1-49 days. Hospital mortality was 14.6% in the ECMO group versus 26.2% in the no ECMO group, which equated to an 11.6% absolute risk reduction (P = 0.03) and 52% relative risk reduction (P = 0.04) in mortality. ECMO was associated with hospital costs that were $114,000 higher per patient, compared with the no ECMO group, but did not affect intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, or time on invasive mechanical ventilation.

We were pleased that our patient had a good outcome, and were reassured by our study results. But we were left to wonder whether ECMO really was the best salvage therapy for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, and if it was initiated for the right indications at the best time. These are important treatment considerations that take on new urgency given that physicians are increasingly looking to ECMO as a salvage therapy for refractory asthma, and the recent FDA approval of low-flow, extracorporeal CO₂ removal systems that could make CO₂ removal a more available, and perhaps less expensive, strategy. Despite promising epidemiological data, it will be important that these questions are answered with well-designed clinical trials so that physicians can be armed with the knowledge needed to navigate complex clinical scenarios, and ultimately to prevent unfortunate deaths from a reversible disease.

The overnight shift in the MCU began as it does for many intensivists, by hearing about ED admissions, transfers from outside hospitals, sick floor patients, and high-risk patients in the MICU. Earlier in the day, the MICU team had admitted a 39-year-old woman with a severe asthma attack that required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation in the ED for hypercarbic respiratory failure. After intubation, she had no audible air movement on chest exam, severe hypercarbic respiratory acidosis determined by an arterial blood gas, a clear chest radiograph, and negative findings on a respiratory viral panel. Her family said that she had run out of her steroid inhaler a month earlier and could not afford a refill. She had been using increasing amounts of albuterol over the past week before developing severe shortness of breath on the day of admission. The ED and MICU teams aggressively treated her with high-dose inhaled albuterol, ipratropium, and IV magnesium sulfate for bronchodilation; methylprednisolone for airway inflammation; and continuous ketamine for sedation, analgesia, and bronchodilation (Rehder KJ, et al. Respir Care. 2017;62[6]:849). Her airway pressures continued to be high despite using lung protective ventilation, so she was shifted to a permissive hypercapnia ventilation strategy using neuromuscular blockade, deep sedation, and low minute-ventilation (Laher AE, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33[9]:491).

CHEST

Two hours into the shift, the bedside nurse noted that the patient had become hypotensive. Her ventilator pressures remained stable with peak inspiratory pressures of 38-42 cm H₂O, plateau pressures of 28-30 cm H₂O, auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP) of 10-12 cm H₂O, and fractional inspiratory oxygen (FiO₂) of 40%. A repeat chest radiograph showed no signs of barotrauma, but arterial blood gas values showed severe respiratory acidosis with a pH of 7.05 and a PCO₂ > 100 mm Hg. Her condition stabilized when she received a continuous infusion of bicarbonate to control her acidosis and low-dose IV norepinephrine for blood pressure control. It was at that moment that the bedside nurse astutely asked whether we should consider starting ECMO for the patient, as coauthor Dr. Arun Kannappan had done for a similar patient with asthma a month earlier. Dr. Vandivier notes, “My first response was that ECMO was not needed, because our patient had stabilized, and I had taken care of many patients like this in the past. But as I considered the situation more carefully, it was clear that any further decompensation could put our patient’s life at risk by not leaving enough time to start ECMO in a controlled setting. In short, my ‘traditional’ approach left little room for error in a patient with high ventilator pressures and hemodynamic instability.”

CHEST

ECMO is a technique used to add oxygen or remove CO₂ from the blood of people with different forms of respiratory failure (Fan E, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2016;2:712) that was first used by Hill and colleagues in 1966 for trauma-induced ARDS (Hill JD, et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:629). The ECMO circuit pumps blood from the venous system into an oxygenator that adds oxygen and removes CO₂ before blood is returned to either the venous or arterial circulation (Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:712). Venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) is used in clinical scenarios where only oxygenation and/or CO₂ removal is needed, whereas venoarterial ECMO (vaECMO) is reserved for situations where additional hemodynamic support is necessary. ECMO is traditionally thought of as a means to increase blood oxygenation, but it is less widely appreciated that ECMO is particularly effective at removing blood CO₂. In addition to ECMO helping to normalize oxygenation or eliminate CO₂, it can also be used to lower tidal volumes, decrease airway pressures, and allow “lungs to rest” with the goal of avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

CHEST

Standing at the bedside, it seemed to the authors that it was the right time to think about instituting a salvage therapy. But was there evidence that ECMO could improve survival? Were there clear guidelines for when to initiate ECMO, and was ECMO more effective than other salvage therapies such as inhaled volatile anesthetics?

Since McDonnell and colleagues first described the use of ECMO for a severe asthma exacerbation in 1981 (Ann Thoracic Surg. 1981;31[2]:171), about 95 articles have been published. Other than two registry studies and a recent epidemiologic study, all of these publications were case reports, case series, and reviews. Mikkelsen and colleagues (ASAIO J. 2009;55[1]:47) performed a retrospective, cohort study using the International Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) Organization Registry to determine whether ECMO use for status asthmaticus was associated with greater survival than the use of ECMO for other causes of respiratory failure. From 1986 through 2006, a total of 2,127 cases of respiratory failure were identified that required ECMO, including 27 for status asthmaticus and 1,233 for other causes. Their analysis showed that 83.3% of asthmatics treated with ECMO survived to hospital discharge, compared with 50.8% of people treated with ECMO for respiratory failure not due to asthma, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.86 favoring survival of asthmatics (OR = 4.86; 95% CI, 1.65-14.31, P = .004).

Yeo and colleagues (Yeo HJ, et al. Critical Care. 2017;21:297) also used the ECLS Organization Registry to measure survival to hospital discharge, complications, and clinical factors associated with in-hospital mortality for asthmatics treated with ECMO. They included 272 people treated with ECMO for asthma between 1992 and 2016, after excluding people treated with ECMO for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or cardiac dysfunction. ECMO was associated with improvements in ventilator mechanics, including a reduction in respiratory rate, FiO₂, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and driving pressure. Use of ECMO for status asthmaticus was also associated with an 83.5% survival to hospital discharge, similar to the study by Mikkelsen and colleagues. Hemorrhage, the most common complication, occurred in roughly a quarter of people treated with ECMO. In the multivariate analysis, age, bleeding, pre-ECMO PEEP, post-ECMO FiO₂, and driving pressure were all associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Although there are no formal criteria to guide use of ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, a number of physicians and a physician organization have recommended that ECMO be considered for persistently high ventilator pressures, uncontrolled respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic instability. Because our patient qualified for ECMO based on all three suggested criteria, we consulted cardiac surgery who quickly started her on vvECMO. She remained on ECMO for 4 days until she was decannulated, extubated, and discharged home.

Despite this positive outcome, the lack of a high-quality, controlled study to help guide our decision was surprising given the ability of ECMO to efficiently remove CO₂ and to decrease ventilator pressures. The lack of guidance prompted us to perform a retrospective, epidemiologic cohort study to determine whether treatment with ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure was associated with reduced mortality, compared with people treated without ECMO (Zakrajsek JK, Chest. 2023;163[1]:38). The study included 13,714 people admitted to an ECMO-capable hospital with respiratory failure that required invasive ventilation because of an asthma exacerbation between 2010 and 2020, of which 127 were treated with ECMO and 13,587 were not. During this period, use of ECMO as a salvage therapy for severe asthma exacerbations was a rare event, but it became more common over time. With the limitation that 40% of asthma patients were transferred from an outside hospital, 74% were started on ECMO in the first 2 hospital days, and 94% were started within the first week of hospitalization. Once started, ECMO was continued for a median of 1.0 day and range of 1-49 days. Hospital mortality was 14.6% in the ECMO group versus 26.2% in the no ECMO group, which equated to an 11.6% absolute risk reduction (P = 0.03) and 52% relative risk reduction (P = 0.04) in mortality. ECMO was associated with hospital costs that were $114,000 higher per patient, compared with the no ECMO group, but did not affect intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, or time on invasive mechanical ventilation.

We were pleased that our patient had a good outcome, and were reassured by our study results. But we were left to wonder whether ECMO really was the best salvage therapy for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, and if it was initiated for the right indications at the best time. These are important treatment considerations that take on new urgency given that physicians are increasingly looking to ECMO as a salvage therapy for refractory asthma, and the recent FDA approval of low-flow, extracorporeal CO₂ removal systems that could make CO₂ removal a more available, and perhaps less expensive, strategy. Despite promising epidemiological data, it will be important that these questions are answered with well-designed clinical trials so that physicians can be armed with the knowledge needed to navigate complex clinical scenarios, and ultimately to prevent unfortunate deaths from a reversible disease.