CHEST Physician

New data from Israel provide further evidence that myocarditis is a rare adverse event of vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents – one that predominantly occurs in males and typically after the second dose.

The new data also indicate a “mild and benign” clinical course of myocarditis after vaccination, with “favorable” long-term prognosis based on cardiac imaging findings.

Guy Witberg, MD, MPH, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and colleagues report their latest observations in correspondence in The New England Journal of Medicine, online.

The group previously reported in December 2021 that the incidence of myocarditis in Israel after receipt of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was highest among males between the ages of 16 and 29 (10.7 cases per 100,000).

The vaccine has since been approved for adolescents aged 12-15. Initial evidence for this age group, reported by Dr. Witberg and colleagues in March 2022, suggests a similar low incidence and mild course of myocarditis, although follow-up was limited to 30 days.

In their latest report, with follow-up out to 6 months, Dr. Witberg and colleagues identified nine probable or definite cases of myocarditis among 182,605 Israeli adolescents aged 12-15 who received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine – an incidence of 4.8 cases per 100,000.

Eight cases occurred after the second vaccine dose. All nine cases were mild.

Cardiac and inflammatory markers were elevated in all adolescent patients and electrocardiographic results were abnormal in two-thirds.

Eight patients had a normal ejection fraction, and four had a pericardial effusion. The patients spent 2-4 days hospitalized, and the in-hospital course was uneventful.

Echocardiographic findings were available a median of 10 days after discharge for eight patients. All echocardiograms showed a normal ejection fraction and resolution of pericardial effusion.

Five patients underwent cardiac MRI, including three scans performed at a median of 104 days after discharge. The scans showed “minimal evidence” of myocardial scarring or fibrosis, with evidence of late gadolinium enhancement ranging from 0% to 2%.

At a median of 206 days following discharge, all of the patients were alive, and none had been readmitted to the hospital, Dr. Witberg and colleagues report.

This research had no specific funding. Five authors have received research grants from Pfizer.

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

New data from Israel provide further evidence that myocarditis is a rare adverse event of vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents – one that predominantly occurs in males and typically after the second dose.

The new data also indicate a “mild and benign” clinical course of myocarditis after vaccination, with “favorable” long-term prognosis based on cardiac imaging findings.

Guy Witberg, MD, MPH, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and colleagues report their latest observations in correspondence in The New England Journal of Medicine, online.

The group previously reported in December 2021 that the incidence of myocarditis in Israel after receipt of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was highest among males between the ages of 16 and 29 (10.7 cases per 100,000).

The vaccine has since been approved for adolescents aged 12-15. Initial evidence for this age group, reported by Dr. Witberg and colleagues in March 2022, suggests a similar low incidence and mild course of myocarditis, although follow-up was limited to 30 days.

In their latest report, with follow-up out to 6 months, Dr. Witberg and colleagues identified nine probable or definite cases of myocarditis among 182,605 Israeli adolescents aged 12-15 who received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine – an incidence of 4.8 cases per 100,000.

Eight cases occurred after the second vaccine dose. All nine cases were mild.

Cardiac and inflammatory markers were elevated in all adolescent patients and electrocardiographic results were abnormal in two-thirds.

Eight patients had a normal ejection fraction, and four had a pericardial effusion. The patients spent 2-4 days hospitalized, and the in-hospital course was uneventful.

Echocardiographic findings were available a median of 10 days after discharge for eight patients. All echocardiograms showed a normal ejection fraction and resolution of pericardial effusion.

Five patients underwent cardiac MRI, including three scans performed at a median of 104 days after discharge. The scans showed “minimal evidence” of myocardial scarring or fibrosis, with evidence of late gadolinium enhancement ranging from 0% to 2%.

At a median of 206 days following discharge, all of the patients were alive, and none had been readmitted to the hospital, Dr. Witberg and colleagues report.

This research had no specific funding. Five authors have received research grants from Pfizer.

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

New data from Israel provide further evidence that myocarditis is a rare adverse event of vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in adolescents – one that predominantly occurs in males and typically after the second dose.

The new data also indicate a “mild and benign” clinical course of myocarditis after vaccination, with “favorable” long-term prognosis based on cardiac imaging findings.

Guy Witberg, MD, MPH, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, and colleagues report their latest observations in correspondence in The New England Journal of Medicine, online.

The group previously reported in December 2021 that the incidence of myocarditis in Israel after receipt of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was highest among males between the ages of 16 and 29 (10.7 cases per 100,000).

The vaccine has since been approved for adolescents aged 12-15. Initial evidence for this age group, reported by Dr. Witberg and colleagues in March 2022, suggests a similar low incidence and mild course of myocarditis, although follow-up was limited to 30 days.

In their latest report, with follow-up out to 6 months, Dr. Witberg and colleagues identified nine probable or definite cases of myocarditis among 182,605 Israeli adolescents aged 12-15 who received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine – an incidence of 4.8 cases per 100,000.

Eight cases occurred after the second vaccine dose. All nine cases were mild.

Cardiac and inflammatory markers were elevated in all adolescent patients and electrocardiographic results were abnormal in two-thirds.

Eight patients had a normal ejection fraction, and four had a pericardial effusion. The patients spent 2-4 days hospitalized, and the in-hospital course was uneventful.

Echocardiographic findings were available a median of 10 days after discharge for eight patients. All echocardiograms showed a normal ejection fraction and resolution of pericardial effusion.

Five patients underwent cardiac MRI, including three scans performed at a median of 104 days after discharge. The scans showed “minimal evidence” of myocardial scarring or fibrosis, with evidence of late gadolinium enhancement ranging from 0% to 2%.

At a median of 206 days following discharge, all of the patients were alive, and none had been readmitted to the hospital, Dr. Witberg and colleagues report.

This research had no specific funding. Five authors have received research grants from Pfizer.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – For children with uncontrolled asthma on standard therapies and meeting criteria of a type 2 (T2) inflammatory phenotype, a prospective 1-year extension from a phase 3 trial supports the biologic dupilumab as a potential treatment standard, according to the investigator who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“The appropriate candidate is a child with the T2 inflammatory phenotype who is still experiencing exacerbations on at least a medium dose of inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller medication,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, section chief, division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and pulmonary medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

By T2 inflammatory phenotype, Dr. Bacharier specified that key features include an eosinophil count of at least 150 cells/mL and a FENO level of at least 20 ppb. If children meet these and inadequate standard-therapy response criteria, Dr. Bacharier thinks the extension data support dupilumab as a routine therapy despite the cost.

“As a pediatrician, I think it is really important that children with asthma finish their childhood with the best bone health and the lowest risk of other steroid-associated adverse events,” Dr. Bacharier said.

Over the course of the 1-year extension, called EXCURSION, there was no evidence of diminished efficacy nor of any new safety signal. In other words, patients have remained well controlled for 2 years with a well-tolerated therapy. Dr. Bacharier pointed out, however, that one of the most compelling reasons to consider this as a potential standard was the very low rates at which patients required a course of steroids.

At the end of 1 year in the extension trial, called VOYAGE, the unadjusted annualized total number of steroid courses per patient was 0.414 in the dupilumab group vs. 0.816 in the placebo group. At the end of EXCURSION, following an additional year of therapy, the rate was 0.152.

“This means that fewer than 2 patients out of 10 required prednisone in the previous year,” Dr. Bacharier said.

The EXCURSION extension study did not capture data on steroid-related adverse events, but Dr. Bacharier said that these data are reassuring for both acute and long-term risks of steroid exposure.

“We know that the adverse effects associated with oral steroids are related to cumulative exposure. The more you receive, the greater the risk of adverse effects,” he said.

In patients who were randomly assigned to placebo in the VOYAGE trial and then switched to dupilumab in the EXCURSION extension, steroid exposure was also very low, but whether evaluated as annualized total courses (0.152 vs. 0.181) or by proportion of patients with any steroid intake (10.5% vs. 13.2%), there was a numerical advantage for starting and remaining on dupilumab over the 2-year follow-up.

In VOYAGE, which was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, 408 children from ages 6 to 11 years were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to dupilumab or matching placebo. For children weighing less than 30 kg, the dose was 200 mg. For those who weighed less, the dose was 100 mg. Both doses were administered every 2 weeks.

As previously reported, the study met the primary endpoint of annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations, which was 0.31 in the dupilumab group vs. 0.75 in the placebo group, a relative reduction of 59.3% (P < .001). Dupilumab was also superior on several secondary endpoints, including measures of lung function and asthma control.

The EXCURSION extension study enrolled 365 of the patients who participated in VOYAGE. This included 125 of the 135 randomly assigned to placebo and 240 of the 273 randomly assigned to dupilumab. Those initially randomly assigned to placebo were transitioned to dupilumab. The same weight-based dosing was employed.

At baseline, the children enrolled in VOYAGE had an annualized rate of 2.560 severe exacerbations. At the end of VOYAGE, this rate was 0.330. At the end of EXCURSION after 2 years on dupilumab, the rate was 0.118. In the group switched from placebo to dupilumab, the rate was 0.124.

During EXCURSION, treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 2.5% of those who remained on dupilumab and 0.8% of those switched from placebo to dupilumab. Three patients (1.3%) permanently discontinued therapy because of a treatment-related event. The most common adverse events involved upper respiratory complaints, such as nasopharyngitis, pharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and rhinitis influenza, but all were reported in fewer than 10% of patients. Other reported side effects, such as injection-site reactions and diarrhea, occurred in 5% or fewer of patients.

“Over the 2 years, dupilumab was well tolerated, and there was evidence of an increased risk of adverse events for longer exposure,” Dr. Bacharier reported.

It is for this reason that Dr. Bacharier concluded that children with repeated exacerbations requiring steroids despite standard therapies should be considered for dupilumab if they also meet criteria for the T2 inflammatory phenotype. This last point is important.

“In children with low levels of eosinophil and low phenol, we are not seeing these kinds of response,” Dr. Bacharier said. Rather, in the absence of eosinophilia, “there is probably no difference between dupilumab and placebo.”

An important steroid-sparing effect is “suggested” by the data, but Sally E. Wenzel, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Asthma and Environmental Lung Health Institute in Pittsburgh, characterized the idea that dupilumab is emerging to be a standard in uncontrolled asthma in children with the T2 phenotype as “a bit premature.”

She challenged the conclusion that the EXCURSION data associated dupilumab with a reduction in annualized steroid courses over time. While the number was lower after 2 years of treatment than after 1, Dr. Wenzel pointed out that all patients were on dupilumab in the second year, “so we don’t know what really happens without treatment.” She said there are other potential explanations, including the possibility that aging children have less active disease.

More importantly, Dr. Wenzel said in an interview that she would also hesitate to urge biologics in every child who meets the criteria that Dr. Bacharier outlined.

“The most important concern is that we do not know how long one should continue the dupilumab and if the long-term treatment adversely or positively affects a growing immune system,” she said.

There is reason to be concerned that blockage of an entire immune pathway with a biologic could adversely affect autoimmunity as well as susceptibility to cancer, according to Dr. Wenzel. She hopes this does not prove to be the case, but she encouraged prudence until there are more data to judge.

While extension data for dupilumab “sound good,” she thinks moving toward any type of standard of care with biologics in children “has to be done with caution and constant evaluation and reevaluation.”

Dr. Bacharier disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron and Sanofi. The two latter companies collaborated on the development and marketing of dupilumab. Dr. Wenzel disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Knopp Pharmaceuticals, Pieris, and Sanofi-Regeneron.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – For children with uncontrolled asthma on standard therapies and meeting criteria of a type 2 (T2) inflammatory phenotype, a prospective 1-year extension from a phase 3 trial supports the biologic dupilumab as a potential treatment standard, according to the investigator who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“The appropriate candidate is a child with the T2 inflammatory phenotype who is still experiencing exacerbations on at least a medium dose of inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller medication,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, section chief, division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and pulmonary medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

By T2 inflammatory phenotype, Dr. Bacharier specified that key features include an eosinophil count of at least 150 cells/mL and a FENO level of at least 20 ppb. If children meet these and inadequate standard-therapy response criteria, Dr. Bacharier thinks the extension data support dupilumab as a routine therapy despite the cost.

“As a pediatrician, I think it is really important that children with asthma finish their childhood with the best bone health and the lowest risk of other steroid-associated adverse events,” Dr. Bacharier said.

Over the course of the 1-year extension, called EXCURSION, there was no evidence of diminished efficacy nor of any new safety signal. In other words, patients have remained well controlled for 2 years with a well-tolerated therapy. Dr. Bacharier pointed out, however, that one of the most compelling reasons to consider this as a potential standard was the very low rates at which patients required a course of steroids.

At the end of 1 year in the extension trial, called VOYAGE, the unadjusted annualized total number of steroid courses per patient was 0.414 in the dupilumab group vs. 0.816 in the placebo group. At the end of EXCURSION, following an additional year of therapy, the rate was 0.152.

“This means that fewer than 2 patients out of 10 required prednisone in the previous year,” Dr. Bacharier said.

The EXCURSION extension study did not capture data on steroid-related adverse events, but Dr. Bacharier said that these data are reassuring for both acute and long-term risks of steroid exposure.

“We know that the adverse effects associated with oral steroids are related to cumulative exposure. The more you receive, the greater the risk of adverse effects,” he said.

In patients who were randomly assigned to placebo in the VOYAGE trial and then switched to dupilumab in the EXCURSION extension, steroid exposure was also very low, but whether evaluated as annualized total courses (0.152 vs. 0.181) or by proportion of patients with any steroid intake (10.5% vs. 13.2%), there was a numerical advantage for starting and remaining on dupilumab over the 2-year follow-up.

In VOYAGE, which was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, 408 children from ages 6 to 11 years were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to dupilumab or matching placebo. For children weighing less than 30 kg, the dose was 200 mg. For those who weighed less, the dose was 100 mg. Both doses were administered every 2 weeks.

As previously reported, the study met the primary endpoint of annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations, which was 0.31 in the dupilumab group vs. 0.75 in the placebo group, a relative reduction of 59.3% (P < .001). Dupilumab was also superior on several secondary endpoints, including measures of lung function and asthma control.

The EXCURSION extension study enrolled 365 of the patients who participated in VOYAGE. This included 125 of the 135 randomly assigned to placebo and 240 of the 273 randomly assigned to dupilumab. Those initially randomly assigned to placebo were transitioned to dupilumab. The same weight-based dosing was employed.

At baseline, the children enrolled in VOYAGE had an annualized rate of 2.560 severe exacerbations. At the end of VOYAGE, this rate was 0.330. At the end of EXCURSION after 2 years on dupilumab, the rate was 0.118. In the group switched from placebo to dupilumab, the rate was 0.124.

During EXCURSION, treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 2.5% of those who remained on dupilumab and 0.8% of those switched from placebo to dupilumab. Three patients (1.3%) permanently discontinued therapy because of a treatment-related event. The most common adverse events involved upper respiratory complaints, such as nasopharyngitis, pharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and rhinitis influenza, but all were reported in fewer than 10% of patients. Other reported side effects, such as injection-site reactions and diarrhea, occurred in 5% or fewer of patients.

“Over the 2 years, dupilumab was well tolerated, and there was evidence of an increased risk of adverse events for longer exposure,” Dr. Bacharier reported.

It is for this reason that Dr. Bacharier concluded that children with repeated exacerbations requiring steroids despite standard therapies should be considered for dupilumab if they also meet criteria for the T2 inflammatory phenotype. This last point is important.

“In children with low levels of eosinophil and low phenol, we are not seeing these kinds of response,” Dr. Bacharier said. Rather, in the absence of eosinophilia, “there is probably no difference between dupilumab and placebo.”

An important steroid-sparing effect is “suggested” by the data, but Sally E. Wenzel, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Asthma and Environmental Lung Health Institute in Pittsburgh, characterized the idea that dupilumab is emerging to be a standard in uncontrolled asthma in children with the T2 phenotype as “a bit premature.”

She challenged the conclusion that the EXCURSION data associated dupilumab with a reduction in annualized steroid courses over time. While the number was lower after 2 years of treatment than after 1, Dr. Wenzel pointed out that all patients were on dupilumab in the second year, “so we don’t know what really happens without treatment.” She said there are other potential explanations, including the possibility that aging children have less active disease.

More importantly, Dr. Wenzel said in an interview that she would also hesitate to urge biologics in every child who meets the criteria that Dr. Bacharier outlined.

“The most important concern is that we do not know how long one should continue the dupilumab and if the long-term treatment adversely or positively affects a growing immune system,” she said.

There is reason to be concerned that blockage of an entire immune pathway with a biologic could adversely affect autoimmunity as well as susceptibility to cancer, according to Dr. Wenzel. She hopes this does not prove to be the case, but she encouraged prudence until there are more data to judge.

While extension data for dupilumab “sound good,” she thinks moving toward any type of standard of care with biologics in children “has to be done with caution and constant evaluation and reevaluation.”

Dr. Bacharier disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron and Sanofi. The two latter companies collaborated on the development and marketing of dupilumab. Dr. Wenzel disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Knopp Pharmaceuticals, Pieris, and Sanofi-Regeneron.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – For children with uncontrolled asthma on standard therapies and meeting criteria of a type 2 (T2) inflammatory phenotype, a prospective 1-year extension from a phase 3 trial supports the biologic dupilumab as a potential treatment standard, according to the investigator who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“The appropriate candidate is a child with the T2 inflammatory phenotype who is still experiencing exacerbations on at least a medium dose of inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller medication,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, section chief, division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and pulmonary medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

By T2 inflammatory phenotype, Dr. Bacharier specified that key features include an eosinophil count of at least 150 cells/mL and a FENO level of at least 20 ppb. If children meet these and inadequate standard-therapy response criteria, Dr. Bacharier thinks the extension data support dupilumab as a routine therapy despite the cost.

“As a pediatrician, I think it is really important that children with asthma finish their childhood with the best bone health and the lowest risk of other steroid-associated adverse events,” Dr. Bacharier said.

Over the course of the 1-year extension, called EXCURSION, there was no evidence of diminished efficacy nor of any new safety signal. In other words, patients have remained well controlled for 2 years with a well-tolerated therapy. Dr. Bacharier pointed out, however, that one of the most compelling reasons to consider this as a potential standard was the very low rates at which patients required a course of steroids.

At the end of 1 year in the extension trial, called VOYAGE, the unadjusted annualized total number of steroid courses per patient was 0.414 in the dupilumab group vs. 0.816 in the placebo group. At the end of EXCURSION, following an additional year of therapy, the rate was 0.152.

“This means that fewer than 2 patients out of 10 required prednisone in the previous year,” Dr. Bacharier said.

The EXCURSION extension study did not capture data on steroid-related adverse events, but Dr. Bacharier said that these data are reassuring for both acute and long-term risks of steroid exposure.

“We know that the adverse effects associated with oral steroids are related to cumulative exposure. The more you receive, the greater the risk of adverse effects,” he said.

In patients who were randomly assigned to placebo in the VOYAGE trial and then switched to dupilumab in the EXCURSION extension, steroid exposure was also very low, but whether evaluated as annualized total courses (0.152 vs. 0.181) or by proportion of patients with any steroid intake (10.5% vs. 13.2%), there was a numerical advantage for starting and remaining on dupilumab over the 2-year follow-up.

In VOYAGE, which was published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, 408 children from ages 6 to 11 years were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to dupilumab or matching placebo. For children weighing less than 30 kg, the dose was 200 mg. For those who weighed less, the dose was 100 mg. Both doses were administered every 2 weeks.

As previously reported, the study met the primary endpoint of annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations, which was 0.31 in the dupilumab group vs. 0.75 in the placebo group, a relative reduction of 59.3% (P < .001). Dupilumab was also superior on several secondary endpoints, including measures of lung function and asthma control.

The EXCURSION extension study enrolled 365 of the patients who participated in VOYAGE. This included 125 of the 135 randomly assigned to placebo and 240 of the 273 randomly assigned to dupilumab. Those initially randomly assigned to placebo were transitioned to dupilumab. The same weight-based dosing was employed.

At baseline, the children enrolled in VOYAGE had an annualized rate of 2.560 severe exacerbations. At the end of VOYAGE, this rate was 0.330. At the end of EXCURSION after 2 years on dupilumab, the rate was 0.118. In the group switched from placebo to dupilumab, the rate was 0.124.

During EXCURSION, treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 2.5% of those who remained on dupilumab and 0.8% of those switched from placebo to dupilumab. Three patients (1.3%) permanently discontinued therapy because of a treatment-related event. The most common adverse events involved upper respiratory complaints, such as nasopharyngitis, pharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and rhinitis influenza, but all were reported in fewer than 10% of patients. Other reported side effects, such as injection-site reactions and diarrhea, occurred in 5% or fewer of patients.

“Over the 2 years, dupilumab was well tolerated, and there was evidence of an increased risk of adverse events for longer exposure,” Dr. Bacharier reported.

It is for this reason that Dr. Bacharier concluded that children with repeated exacerbations requiring steroids despite standard therapies should be considered for dupilumab if they also meet criteria for the T2 inflammatory phenotype. This last point is important.

“In children with low levels of eosinophil and low phenol, we are not seeing these kinds of response,” Dr. Bacharier said. Rather, in the absence of eosinophilia, “there is probably no difference between dupilumab and placebo.”

An important steroid-sparing effect is “suggested” by the data, but Sally E. Wenzel, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Asthma and Environmental Lung Health Institute in Pittsburgh, characterized the idea that dupilumab is emerging to be a standard in uncontrolled asthma in children with the T2 phenotype as “a bit premature.”

She challenged the conclusion that the EXCURSION data associated dupilumab with a reduction in annualized steroid courses over time. While the number was lower after 2 years of treatment than after 1, Dr. Wenzel pointed out that all patients were on dupilumab in the second year, “so we don’t know what really happens without treatment.” She said there are other potential explanations, including the possibility that aging children have less active disease.

More importantly, Dr. Wenzel said in an interview that she would also hesitate to urge biologics in every child who meets the criteria that Dr. Bacharier outlined.

“The most important concern is that we do not know how long one should continue the dupilumab and if the long-term treatment adversely or positively affects a growing immune system,” she said.

There is reason to be concerned that blockage of an entire immune pathway with a biologic could adversely affect autoimmunity as well as susceptibility to cancer, according to Dr. Wenzel. She hopes this does not prove to be the case, but she encouraged prudence until there are more data to judge.

While extension data for dupilumab “sound good,” she thinks moving toward any type of standard of care with biologics in children “has to be done with caution and constant evaluation and reevaluation.”

Dr. Bacharier disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron and Sanofi. The two latter companies collaborated on the development and marketing of dupilumab. Dr. Wenzel disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Knopp Pharmaceuticals, Pieris, and Sanofi-Regeneron.

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

What you really don’t want to do, if you want to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at your academic institution, is to recruit diverse people to your program and then have them come and feel not included, said Vivian Asare, MD. “That can work against your efforts,” she stated in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). Dr. Asare is assistant professor and vice chief of DEI for Yale Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, and associate medical director of Yale Centers for Sleep Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

In offering a path to successful DEI, Dr. Asare said: “The first step is to build a team and discuss your mission. Invite everyone to participate and include your leadership because they’re the ones who set the stage, ensure sustainability, and can be a liaison with faculty.” Then a DEI leader should be elected, she added.

The next and very important step is to survey the current institutional climate. “You need to tap into how people feel about DEI in your program.” That entails speaking directly with the stakeholders (faculty, staff, trainees) and identifying their specific concerns and what they think is lacking. Retreats, serious group discussions, and self-reflecting (asking “what initiatives would be good for us?”), and meeting one-on-one with individuals for a truly personalized approach are among potentially productive strategies for identifying the priorities and DEI-related topics specific to a particular academic sleep program.

Dr. Asare offered up a sample DEI survey (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Nov;223[5]:715.e1-715.e7), that made direct statements inviting the respondent to check off one of the following responses: Yes, No, Somewhat, Do not know, and Not applicable. Among sample statements:

• Our department is actively committed to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
• Faculty searches in the department regularly attract a diverse pool of highly qualified candidates and/or attract a pool that represents the availability of MDs in this field.
• Our outreach and recruitment processes employ targeted practices for attracting diverse populations.

Dr. Asare said that a survey can be a simple approach for garnering information that can be useful for prioritizing DEI topics of concern and igniting interest in them. Engagement requires regular DEI committee meetings with minutes or a newsletter and with updates and topics brought to faculty meetings.
 

Key DEI areas of focus

Dr. Asare listed several key DEI areas: Recruitment/retention, mentorship, scholarship, and inclusion and community engagement. Under scholarship, for example, she cited topics for potential inclusion in a DEI curriculum: Unconscious bias and anti-racism training, racism, discrimination and microaggression education (bystander/deescalation training), cultural competency and awareness, workplace civility, and health disparities. “We all know that implicit bias in providers is a reality, unfortunately,” Dr. Asare said. Being aware of these implicit biases is a start, but instruction on how to actively overcome them has to be provided. Tools may include perspective-taking, exploring common identity, and self-reflection.

To create an inclusive environment for all faculty, trainees, and staff may involve establishing a “welcome committee” for new faculty, perhaps with designating a “peer buddy,” creating social events and other opportunities for all opinions and ideas to be heard and valued. Particularly for underserved and disadvantaged patient populations, patient advocacy and community service need to be fostered through support groups and provision of resources.

Summarizing, Dr. Asare reiterated several key elements for a successful DEI program: Build a team and discuss the mission, survey the current climate allowing open communication and dialogue, plan and engage, organize, and form areas of DEI focus. Find out where you are and where you want to be with respect to DEI, she concluded.

Dr. Asare declared that she had no conflicts of interest.

What you really don’t want to do, if you want to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at your academic institution, is to recruit diverse people to your program and then have them come and feel not included, said Vivian Asare, MD. “That can work against your efforts,” she stated in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). Dr. Asare is assistant professor and vice chief of DEI for Yale Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, and associate medical director of Yale Centers for Sleep Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

In offering a path to successful DEI, Dr. Asare said: “The first step is to build a team and discuss your mission. Invite everyone to participate and include your leadership because they’re the ones who set the stage, ensure sustainability, and can be a liaison with faculty.” Then a DEI leader should be elected, she added.

The next and very important step is to survey the current institutional climate. “You need to tap into how people feel about DEI in your program.” That entails speaking directly with the stakeholders (faculty, staff, trainees) and identifying their specific concerns and what they think is lacking. Retreats, serious group discussions, and self-reflecting (asking “what initiatives would be good for us?”), and meeting one-on-one with individuals for a truly personalized approach are among potentially productive strategies for identifying the priorities and DEI-related topics specific to a particular academic sleep program.

Dr. Asare offered up a sample DEI survey (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Nov;223[5]:715.e1-715.e7), that made direct statements inviting the respondent to check off one of the following responses: Yes, No, Somewhat, Do not know, and Not applicable. Among sample statements:

• Our department is actively committed to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
• Faculty searches in the department regularly attract a diverse pool of highly qualified candidates and/or attract a pool that represents the availability of MDs in this field.
• Our outreach and recruitment processes employ targeted practices for attracting diverse populations.

Dr. Asare said that a survey can be a simple approach for garnering information that can be useful for prioritizing DEI topics of concern and igniting interest in them. Engagement requires regular DEI committee meetings with minutes or a newsletter and with updates and topics brought to faculty meetings.
 

Key DEI areas of focus

Dr. Asare listed several key DEI areas: Recruitment/retention, mentorship, scholarship, and inclusion and community engagement. Under scholarship, for example, she cited topics for potential inclusion in a DEI curriculum: Unconscious bias and anti-racism training, racism, discrimination and microaggression education (bystander/deescalation training), cultural competency and awareness, workplace civility, and health disparities. “We all know that implicit bias in providers is a reality, unfortunately,” Dr. Asare said. Being aware of these implicit biases is a start, but instruction on how to actively overcome them has to be provided. Tools may include perspective-taking, exploring common identity, and self-reflection.

To create an inclusive environment for all faculty, trainees, and staff may involve establishing a “welcome committee” for new faculty, perhaps with designating a “peer buddy,” creating social events and other opportunities for all opinions and ideas to be heard and valued. Particularly for underserved and disadvantaged patient populations, patient advocacy and community service need to be fostered through support groups and provision of resources.

Summarizing, Dr. Asare reiterated several key elements for a successful DEI program: Build a team and discuss the mission, survey the current climate allowing open communication and dialogue, plan and engage, organize, and form areas of DEI focus. Find out where you are and where you want to be with respect to DEI, she concluded.

Dr. Asare declared that she had no conflicts of interest.

What you really don’t want to do, if you want to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) at your academic institution, is to recruit diverse people to your program and then have them come and feel not included, said Vivian Asare, MD. “That can work against your efforts,” she stated in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). Dr. Asare is assistant professor and vice chief of DEI for Yale Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, and associate medical director of Yale Centers for Sleep Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

In offering a path to successful DEI, Dr. Asare said: “The first step is to build a team and discuss your mission. Invite everyone to participate and include your leadership because they’re the ones who set the stage, ensure sustainability, and can be a liaison with faculty.” Then a DEI leader should be elected, she added.

The next and very important step is to survey the current institutional climate. “You need to tap into how people feel about DEI in your program.” That entails speaking directly with the stakeholders (faculty, staff, trainees) and identifying their specific concerns and what they think is lacking. Retreats, serious group discussions, and self-reflecting (asking “what initiatives would be good for us?”), and meeting one-on-one with individuals for a truly personalized approach are among potentially productive strategies for identifying the priorities and DEI-related topics specific to a particular academic sleep program.

Dr. Asare offered up a sample DEI survey (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Nov;223[5]:715.e1-715.e7), that made direct statements inviting the respondent to check off one of the following responses: Yes, No, Somewhat, Do not know, and Not applicable. Among sample statements:

• Our department is actively committed to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
• Faculty searches in the department regularly attract a diverse pool of highly qualified candidates and/or attract a pool that represents the availability of MDs in this field.
• Our outreach and recruitment processes employ targeted practices for attracting diverse populations.

Dr. Asare said that a survey can be a simple approach for garnering information that can be useful for prioritizing DEI topics of concern and igniting interest in them. Engagement requires regular DEI committee meetings with minutes or a newsletter and with updates and topics brought to faculty meetings.
 

Key DEI areas of focus

Dr. Asare listed several key DEI areas: Recruitment/retention, mentorship, scholarship, and inclusion and community engagement. Under scholarship, for example, she cited topics for potential inclusion in a DEI curriculum: Unconscious bias and anti-racism training, racism, discrimination and microaggression education (bystander/deescalation training), cultural competency and awareness, workplace civility, and health disparities. “We all know that implicit bias in providers is a reality, unfortunately,” Dr. Asare said. Being aware of these implicit biases is a start, but instruction on how to actively overcome them has to be provided. Tools may include perspective-taking, exploring common identity, and self-reflection.

To create an inclusive environment for all faculty, trainees, and staff may involve establishing a “welcome committee” for new faculty, perhaps with designating a “peer buddy,” creating social events and other opportunities for all opinions and ideas to be heard and valued. Particularly for underserved and disadvantaged patient populations, patient advocacy and community service need to be fostered through support groups and provision of resources.

Summarizing, Dr. Asare reiterated several key elements for a successful DEI program: Build a team and discuss the mission, survey the current climate allowing open communication and dialogue, plan and engage, organize, and form areas of DEI focus. Find out where you are and where you want to be with respect to DEI, she concluded.

Dr. Asare declared that she had no conflicts of interest.

Cardiovascular health (CVH) scores that include sleep predicted CV disease risk among older U.S. adults, supporting the American Heart Association’s recent inclusion of sleep in its own checklist.

Sleep duration is now considered “an essential component for ideal heart and brain health,” according to the AHA’s updated checklist, now called Life’s Essential 8. “Our study is the first to show that sleep metrics add independent predictive value for CVD events over and above the original seven cardiovascular health metrics, providing support for updating the guidelines from Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) to Life’s Essential 8,” lead author Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

For the study, her team compared four versions of LS7 checklists that included sleep in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

“CVH scores that included sleep duration alone as a measure of overall sleep health, as well as scores that included multiple dimensions of sleep health (that is, sleep duration, efficiency, and regularity, daytime sleepiness, and sleep disorders), were both predictive of future CVD,” she said.

Study participants scoring in the highest tertile of the CVH checklists that included sleep had up to a 47% lower CVD risk.

Sleeping 7 hours or more but less than 9 hours nightly was considered “ideal,” according to the study, which was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Lower the odds

Dr. Makarem and colleagues analyzed data from participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) sleep study using overnight polysomnography, 7-day wrist actigraphy, validated questionnaires, and outcomes. They used the data to evaluate the four iterations of an expanded LS7 score:

• Score 1 included sleep duration;
• Score 2 included sleep characteristics linked to CVD in the literature (sleep duration, insomnia, daytime sleepiness, and obstructive sleep apnea [OSA]);
• Score 3 included sleep characteristics associated with CVD in MESA (sleep duration and efficiency, daytime sleepiness, and OSA); and
• Score 4, also based on CVD in MESA, included sleep regularity.

Among 1,920 participants (mean age 69 years; 54% women; 40%, White individuals), the mean LS7 score was 7.3, and the means of the alternate CVH scores that included sleep ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 (scores range from 0 to 14, with higher scores indicating better CVH).

On actigraphy, 63% of participants slept less than 7 hours; 30% slept less than 6 hours; 39% had high night-to-night variability in sleep duration; and 25% had high variability in sleep onset timing.

Overall, 10% had sleep efficiency less than 85%; 14% had excessive daytime sleepiness; 36% had high insomnia symptoms; and 47% had moderate to severe OSA. Short-duration sleepers also had a higher prevalence of overweight/obesity, diabetes, and hypertension and had lower mean LS7 scores.

During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 95 prevalent CVD events and 93 incident cases occurred.

Higher scores on all four expanded versions were related to lower odds of having CVD. Participants in the highest versus the lowest tertile of the LS7 score had 75% lower CVD odds (odds ratio, 0.25). Similarly, those in the highest versus the lowest tertile of CVH scores 1 and 2 had 71% and 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD (OR, 0.29 and OR, 0.20), respectively.

Overall, participants in the highest versus lowest tertile of the LS7 score and all CVH scores had up to 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD; those in the highest versus lowest tertile of CVH score 1, which included sleep duration, and CVH score 4, which included multidimensional sleep health, had 43% and 47% lower incident CVD risk (hazard ratios, 0.57 and 0.53), respectively.

The LS7 score alone was not significantly associated with CVD incidence (HR, 0.62).

“Clinicians should ask patients about their sleep health and emphasize the importance of prioritizing sleep for heart disease prevention,” Dr. Makarem said.
 

Sleep ‘devalued’

“The sleep field has been fighting to get more sleep education into medical education for decades,” AHA volunteer expert Michael A. Grandner, PhD, Director of the Sleep & Health Research Program and of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Clinic at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, said in an interview.

“To my knowledge, there still is not a lot of attention given to it, partly because the culture in medical school and among residents is one of not sleeping,” said Dr. Grandner, who was not involved in the study. “The culture among physicians is ‘Who needs sleep? I function fine without it.’ ”

“Sleep made it to the checklist because it is a biological requirement for human life,” he noted. “We sleep for the same reason we breathe and drink. It’s an imperative. Yet we live in a society that devalues sleep.”

It’s “extremely unusual” for a doctor to ask a patient how they’re sleeping, he said. “It’s also pretty unusual to have sleep-related conversations between doctors and patients, especially in the context of health, not just, ‘Hey, doc, I can’t sleep, throw me a pill.’”

Clinicians should be asking every patient about how they’re sleeping at every visit, Dr. Grandner said. “It’s now part of the official definition of heart health. Just like you would be remiss if you didn’t ask about smoking or test blood pressure, you’d be missing something important by not asking about sleep – something that has similar billing to diet, exercise, blood pressure, and all the other ‘essentials.’ ”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Cardiovascular health (CVH) scores that include sleep predicted CV disease risk among older U.S. adults, supporting the American Heart Association’s recent inclusion of sleep in its own checklist.

Sleep duration is now considered “an essential component for ideal heart and brain health,” according to the AHA’s updated checklist, now called Life’s Essential 8. “Our study is the first to show that sleep metrics add independent predictive value for CVD events over and above the original seven cardiovascular health metrics, providing support for updating the guidelines from Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) to Life’s Essential 8,” lead author Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

For the study, her team compared four versions of LS7 checklists that included sleep in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

“CVH scores that included sleep duration alone as a measure of overall sleep health, as well as scores that included multiple dimensions of sleep health (that is, sleep duration, efficiency, and regularity, daytime sleepiness, and sleep disorders), were both predictive of future CVD,” she said.

Study participants scoring in the highest tertile of the CVH checklists that included sleep had up to a 47% lower CVD risk.

Sleeping 7 hours or more but less than 9 hours nightly was considered “ideal,” according to the study, which was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Lower the odds

Dr. Makarem and colleagues analyzed data from participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) sleep study using overnight polysomnography, 7-day wrist actigraphy, validated questionnaires, and outcomes. They used the data to evaluate the four iterations of an expanded LS7 score:

• Score 1 included sleep duration;
• Score 2 included sleep characteristics linked to CVD in the literature (sleep duration, insomnia, daytime sleepiness, and obstructive sleep apnea [OSA]);
• Score 3 included sleep characteristics associated with CVD in MESA (sleep duration and efficiency, daytime sleepiness, and OSA); and
• Score 4, also based on CVD in MESA, included sleep regularity.

Among 1,920 participants (mean age 69 years; 54% women; 40%, White individuals), the mean LS7 score was 7.3, and the means of the alternate CVH scores that included sleep ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 (scores range from 0 to 14, with higher scores indicating better CVH).

On actigraphy, 63% of participants slept less than 7 hours; 30% slept less than 6 hours; 39% had high night-to-night variability in sleep duration; and 25% had high variability in sleep onset timing.

Overall, 10% had sleep efficiency less than 85%; 14% had excessive daytime sleepiness; 36% had high insomnia symptoms; and 47% had moderate to severe OSA. Short-duration sleepers also had a higher prevalence of overweight/obesity, diabetes, and hypertension and had lower mean LS7 scores.

During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 95 prevalent CVD events and 93 incident cases occurred.

Higher scores on all four expanded versions were related to lower odds of having CVD. Participants in the highest versus the lowest tertile of the LS7 score had 75% lower CVD odds (odds ratio, 0.25). Similarly, those in the highest versus the lowest tertile of CVH scores 1 and 2 had 71% and 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD (OR, 0.29 and OR, 0.20), respectively.

Overall, participants in the highest versus lowest tertile of the LS7 score and all CVH scores had up to 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD; those in the highest versus lowest tertile of CVH score 1, which included sleep duration, and CVH score 4, which included multidimensional sleep health, had 43% and 47% lower incident CVD risk (hazard ratios, 0.57 and 0.53), respectively.

The LS7 score alone was not significantly associated with CVD incidence (HR, 0.62).

“Clinicians should ask patients about their sleep health and emphasize the importance of prioritizing sleep for heart disease prevention,” Dr. Makarem said.
 

Sleep ‘devalued’

“The sleep field has been fighting to get more sleep education into medical education for decades,” AHA volunteer expert Michael A. Grandner, PhD, Director of the Sleep & Health Research Program and of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Clinic at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, said in an interview.

“To my knowledge, there still is not a lot of attention given to it, partly because the culture in medical school and among residents is one of not sleeping,” said Dr. Grandner, who was not involved in the study. “The culture among physicians is ‘Who needs sleep? I function fine without it.’ ”

“Sleep made it to the checklist because it is a biological requirement for human life,” he noted. “We sleep for the same reason we breathe and drink. It’s an imperative. Yet we live in a society that devalues sleep.”

It’s “extremely unusual” for a doctor to ask a patient how they’re sleeping, he said. “It’s also pretty unusual to have sleep-related conversations between doctors and patients, especially in the context of health, not just, ‘Hey, doc, I can’t sleep, throw me a pill.’”

Clinicians should be asking every patient about how they’re sleeping at every visit, Dr. Grandner said. “It’s now part of the official definition of heart health. Just like you would be remiss if you didn’t ask about smoking or test blood pressure, you’d be missing something important by not asking about sleep – something that has similar billing to diet, exercise, blood pressure, and all the other ‘essentials.’ ”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Cardiovascular health (CVH) scores that include sleep predicted CV disease risk among older U.S. adults, supporting the American Heart Association’s recent inclusion of sleep in its own checklist.

Sleep duration is now considered “an essential component for ideal heart and brain health,” according to the AHA’s updated checklist, now called Life’s Essential 8. “Our study is the first to show that sleep metrics add independent predictive value for CVD events over and above the original seven cardiovascular health metrics, providing support for updating the guidelines from Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) to Life’s Essential 8,” lead author Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

For the study, her team compared four versions of LS7 checklists that included sleep in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

“CVH scores that included sleep duration alone as a measure of overall sleep health, as well as scores that included multiple dimensions of sleep health (that is, sleep duration, efficiency, and regularity, daytime sleepiness, and sleep disorders), were both predictive of future CVD,” she said.

Study participants scoring in the highest tertile of the CVH checklists that included sleep had up to a 47% lower CVD risk.

Sleeping 7 hours or more but less than 9 hours nightly was considered “ideal,” according to the study, which was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Lower the odds

Dr. Makarem and colleagues analyzed data from participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) sleep study using overnight polysomnography, 7-day wrist actigraphy, validated questionnaires, and outcomes. They used the data to evaluate the four iterations of an expanded LS7 score:

• Score 1 included sleep duration;
• Score 2 included sleep characteristics linked to CVD in the literature (sleep duration, insomnia, daytime sleepiness, and obstructive sleep apnea [OSA]);
• Score 3 included sleep characteristics associated with CVD in MESA (sleep duration and efficiency, daytime sleepiness, and OSA); and
• Score 4, also based on CVD in MESA, included sleep regularity.

Among 1,920 participants (mean age 69 years; 54% women; 40%, White individuals), the mean LS7 score was 7.3, and the means of the alternate CVH scores that included sleep ranged from 7.4 to 7.8 (scores range from 0 to 14, with higher scores indicating better CVH).

On actigraphy, 63% of participants slept less than 7 hours; 30% slept less than 6 hours; 39% had high night-to-night variability in sleep duration; and 25% had high variability in sleep onset timing.

Overall, 10% had sleep efficiency less than 85%; 14% had excessive daytime sleepiness; 36% had high insomnia symptoms; and 47% had moderate to severe OSA. Short-duration sleepers also had a higher prevalence of overweight/obesity, diabetes, and hypertension and had lower mean LS7 scores.

During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, 95 prevalent CVD events and 93 incident cases occurred.

Higher scores on all four expanded versions were related to lower odds of having CVD. Participants in the highest versus the lowest tertile of the LS7 score had 75% lower CVD odds (odds ratio, 0.25). Similarly, those in the highest versus the lowest tertile of CVH scores 1 and 2 had 71% and 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD (OR, 0.29 and OR, 0.20), respectively.

Overall, participants in the highest versus lowest tertile of the LS7 score and all CVH scores had up to 80% lower odds of prevalent CVD; those in the highest versus lowest tertile of CVH score 1, which included sleep duration, and CVH score 4, which included multidimensional sleep health, had 43% and 47% lower incident CVD risk (hazard ratios, 0.57 and 0.53), respectively.

The LS7 score alone was not significantly associated with CVD incidence (HR, 0.62).

“Clinicians should ask patients about their sleep health and emphasize the importance of prioritizing sleep for heart disease prevention,” Dr. Makarem said.
 

Sleep ‘devalued’

“The sleep field has been fighting to get more sleep education into medical education for decades,” AHA volunteer expert Michael A. Grandner, PhD, Director of the Sleep & Health Research Program and of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Clinic at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, said in an interview.

“To my knowledge, there still is not a lot of attention given to it, partly because the culture in medical school and among residents is one of not sleeping,” said Dr. Grandner, who was not involved in the study. “The culture among physicians is ‘Who needs sleep? I function fine without it.’ ”

“Sleep made it to the checklist because it is a biological requirement for human life,” he noted. “We sleep for the same reason we breathe and drink. It’s an imperative. Yet we live in a society that devalues sleep.”

It’s “extremely unusual” for a doctor to ask a patient how they’re sleeping, he said. “It’s also pretty unusual to have sleep-related conversations between doctors and patients, especially in the context of health, not just, ‘Hey, doc, I can’t sleep, throw me a pill.’”

Clinicians should be asking every patient about how they’re sleeping at every visit, Dr. Grandner said. “It’s now part of the official definition of heart health. Just like you would be remiss if you didn’t ask about smoking or test blood pressure, you’d be missing something important by not asking about sleep – something that has similar billing to diet, exercise, blood pressure, and all the other ‘essentials.’ ”

No commercial funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

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

Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

Offering shopping vouchers to pregnant women as an incentive to quit smoking showed promising results, a study found, despite most participants relapsing after giving birth.

Rewarding pregnant women with up to £400 to spend on Main Street, in addition to usual support, more than doubled the proportion who were still smoke-free late in their pregnancy, and could save the National Health Service money in the long term, according to the research, published in the BMJ, led by the University of Glasgow and the University of York, England.

Although the proportion of women in the United Kingdom who smoke during pregnancy has halved over the past 20 years, those who still do are more reluctant to engage with cessation services.

Interventions using financial incentives were pioneered in the United States, but there is a lack of evidence for how effective they might be in the United Kingdom.
 

Vouchers linked to passing saliva tests

The phase 3 Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial was based on an earlier feasibility study in Glasgow and involved 941 pregnant women aged 16 or older, with a mean age of 27.9 years when they were recruited, from seven stop-smoking services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England between January 2018 and April 2020. Participants self-reported that they smoked at least one cigarette a week.

The cohort was randomised into two groups: a control group who received usual stop smoking support that included the offer of counselling by trained workers combined with free nicotine-replacement therapy, and an intervention group who were given the same interventional support plus targets to receive LoveToShop vouchers.

Although vouchers to the value of £400 were on offer, earning them depended on successfully reaching four milestones. They received a first £50 voucher for engaging with stop-smoking services and setting a quit date and further vouchers for being declared smoke-free by biochemical verification at specific time points in the pregnancy.

Factors including the mother’s age, years of smoking, income, use of nicotine-replacement therapy and e-cigarettes, timing of birth, and birth weight were taken into account.

The study found that 71% of the participants in the incentive group engaged with stop-smoking services and set a quit date, compared with 64% in the control group. By late pregnancy, 126 participants (27%) of the 471 in the intervention group were smoke-free, compared with 58 (12%) of the 470 in the control group.
 

Most women in the trial went back to smoking

However, abstinence rates measured 6 months after giving birth were low in both groups: 6% in the intervention group vs. 4% in the control group.

The researchers also reported no significant differences in birth weight between the two groups.

Overall, the birth weight of babies from 443 intervention participants and 450 controls showed no significant difference between groups (average 3.18 kg vs. 3.13 kg).

The researchers did find a clinically important but not significant 10% increase in birth weight in the subset of participants who adhered with their treatment allocation, but they said further analysis is needed to better understand the relevance of this finding.

Severity of preterm birth was similar between groups, and all serious adverse events, such as miscarriages and stillbirths, were considered unrelated to the intervention.

The researchers acknowledged some limitations to their investigation, including that only 23% of women screened by stop-smoking services were enrolled, and that almost all participants were White. Also, the onset of COVID-19 disrupted some of the trial processes.

However, they concluded that their trial “supports implementation advocated in NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] guidelines by showing an effective, cost-effective, and generalisable pragmatic bolt-on U.K. format for incentive payments” to reduce smoking rates in pregnancy.

A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

A pregnant patient who had COVID-19 showed up at a hospital with respiratory difficulty caused by her illness. Physicians had to perform an emergency delivery of her near-term baby.

The infant survived, but the woman lost oxygen during the ordeal and suffered hypoxic brain damage. She is now suing an obstetrician, a pulmonologist, and an intensive care unit physician for medical malpractice.

The plaintiff contends there was a failure “to adequately recognize and treat her condition,” said Peter Kolbert, senior vice president for claim and litigation services for Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group, which includes national medical liability insurer The Doctors Company.

“The physicians involved vehemently disagree and believe they treated her appropriately,” Mr. Kolbert said. “In fact, we believe their actions were heroic.”

In another case, a patient with COVID-19 and multiple comorbidities was admitted to a hospital. Physicians sedated and intubated the patient to maintain her airway. She recovered, but the patient now alleges doctors were negligent because she developed ulcers during her hospital stay. The case occurred during the height of the pandemic. In addition to the hospital, a pulmonologist, an ICU physician, and an acute care physician are named in the suit.

Both of these lawsuits are being defined as COVID claims because at the time, the plaintiffs either had COVID and needed care because of COVID, or because the care that physicians provided was affected by COVID in some way.

In the second case, the patient had COVID and needed treatment. During her recovery, ulcers developed. A significant aspect of this case is that it occurred during the height of the pandemic. Hospitals were overcrowded, the staff was swamped, and resources were limited. One factor may be that physicians were doing the best they could at the time but that the pandemic affected the extent of care they could provide.

Physicians have long worried about the legal consequences of COVID-19 and whether lawsuits might arise from the care that was provided or that was delayed by the pandemic. Now, new data reflect the grim news: COVID claims have arrived. These cases from the claims database of The Doctors Company are just two examples of many COVID-related claims that have been levied since the pandemic started.

Currently, there are 162 open COVID-related claims in The Doctors Company database, according to Mr. Kolbert. A September 2022 benchmark report from Aon and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management indicates that 245 claims that pertain to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 have been filed since the pandemic began. The findings in this report stem from an analysis of 95,600 hospital and physician liability claims that occurred between 2012 and 2021.

Of the 245 cases, 89 claims have been closed. The average cost was $43,000 per claim, said Kanika Vats, a director and actuary for Aon, a global firm that provides risk, reinsurance, and health solutions. Six of the claims cost $300,000 or more; the highest settlement was for $700,000.

“Most of the allegations in these claims revolve around delay in treatment or delay in diagnosis,” Ms. Vats said.
 

Which specialties are involved in legal actions?

Physicians working in acute care settings such as emergency departments and urgent care centers are the primary targets in COVID-related lawsuits involving doctors, say legal analysts. However, other specialties are also being affected. Physicians being sued include some who practiced telemedicine during the pandemic.

In one case, a primary care physician saw a patient via telemedicine because the physical medical office was closed. The patient was evaluated virtually and was sent for bloodwork and an x-ray.

The patient is now suing the primary care physician, alleging that failure to immediately send her to a hospital resulted in tuberculosis going untreated and that the failure led to a bad outcome. The allegation is that the physician underevaluated the case during the telemedicine visit, Mr. Kolbert said.

Drew Graham, an attorney at Hall Booth Smith PC, which is based in New York, said that most of the COVID-related liability claims he has seen involve facilities that provide postacute care, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities. His firm has also seen a small number of COVID-related claims against physicians.

At least two of the claims involved allegations of improper treatment of COVID during hospitalizations, he said. Another involved a telehealth visit in which the patient claimed the virtual care that was provided was improper and that their condition required an in-person examination. Mr. Graham declined to specify the specialties of the physicians sued.

The Medical Professional Liability Association reports similar trends in COVID-related claims. Long-term facilities and hospitals are the most common focus of COVID-19 claims, followed by emergency medicine, primary care, and ob/gyn medical specialties, according to Kwon Miller, manager of data and analytics for MPL Association, a national trade association for medical liability insurers that operates a large claims database.

Between January 2020 and June 2022, the MPL Association Data Sharing Project recorded 280 COVID-19 events. “Events” refers to notifications, licensing board inquiries, and claims involving COVID. Of these events, 180 were closed with no indemnity payment, and 13 were closed with an average indemnity payment of $3,816, Mr. Miller said.

Complaints of delayed care associated with the pandemic are also on the rise. For example, one patient is suing a gastroenterologist for delaying his colonoscopy, alleging the postponement led to a delayed colon cancer diagnosis and worse prognosis, Mr. Kolbert said.

“It was delayed because all elective procedures at the time were being put off,” he said. “The patient claims that had they received the scheduled screening, the cancer would have been diagnosed at stage I as opposed to stage III.”
 

Why isn’t federal immunity shielding physicians?

A pressing question about the growing number of COVID claims is why state and federal immunity isn’t preventing such lawsuits.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services published a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that provided liability immunity to health care professionals for any activity related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19. The act allows an exception for negligence claims associated with death or serious injury caused by willful misconduct.

At the same time, most states implemented laws or executive orders shielding physicians from liability claims related to the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, unless gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven.

Mr. Graham said some COVID-related claims against physicians have included allegations of gross negligence to avoid the application of state immunity, while others combine allegations of deviations from standard of care unrelated to the pandemic.

Some plaintiffs are attempting to skirt the protections by making complaints sound as if they’re not related to COVID-19, Mr. Kolbert said. That way, they don’t have to prove gross negligence or willful misconduct at all.

“The filings at first blush may not tell you it’s a COVID case, but it may be a COVID case,” he said. “Plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to assert that COVID defenses do not apply and that these cases are ‘traditional physician negligence’ claims. They’re trying to plead around the protections.”

The federal and state immunities are likely keeping the volume of COVID claims down overall and are discouraging some complaints from moving forward, attorneys say.

But because some plaintiffs are downplaying or ignoring the COVID association, it’s likely that more COVID lawsuits exist than anyone realizes, according to Mr. Kolbert.

“I expect there’s an underestimation of how many COVID claims are really out there,” he said.
 

What does the future hold for COVID claims?

Currently, the frequency and the severity of COVID claims are low, Ms. Vats said. She believes the cost of such claims will continue to remain at low levels.

“But again, there is a lot of uncertainty,” she said. “This year, states have started to roll back their immunity protections, and in a lot of states, there is no cap in awarding [noneconomic] damages. There could well be a scenario where they allege wrongful death, and in a state with no cap on the pain and suffering component, if juries continue to behave the way they have been behaving, we could see aberration verdicts.”

Another lingering issue concerns which court systems have jurisdiction in cases involving COVID-related claims. Because of the nationwide response to the pandemic, Mr. Graham thinks it makes sense that federal courts handle the cases, but the plaintiffs’ bar has generally been opposed to federal jurisdiction.

“A second issue is the long-term impact of COVID litigation on our providers,” he said. “If the protections in place to limit liability are determined to be ineffective, our state and federal leaders must act aggressively and in a bipartisan way to make sure our health care providers are protected when we face the next crisis.”

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

In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment. In 2022, a total of 160 new references were added to the previous year’s GOLD report.

According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.

These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.

The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.

In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.

In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.

It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.

Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD

Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.

The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.

Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.

An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.

In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O₂ saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.

Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.

COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment. In 2022, a total of 160 new references were added to the previous year’s GOLD report.

According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.

These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.

The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.

In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.

In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.

It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.

Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD

Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.

The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.

Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.

An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.

In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O₂ saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.

Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.

COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

In the United States and around the globe, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the leading causes of death. In addition to new diagnostic guidelines, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 Report, or GOLD report, sets forth recommendations for management and treatment. In 2022, a total of 160 new references were added to the previous year’s GOLD report.

According to the GOLD report, initial management of COPD should aim at reducing exposure to risk factors such as smoking or other chemical exposures. In addition to medications, stable COPD patients should be evaluated for inhaler technique, adherence to prescribed therapies, smoking status, and continued exposure to other risk factors. Also, physical activity should be advised and pulmonary rehabilitation should be considered. Spirometry should be performed annually.

These guidelines offer very practical advice but often are difficult to implement in clinical practice. Everyone knows smoking is harmful and quitting provides huge health benefits, not only regarding COPD. However, nicotine is very addictive, and most smokers cannot just quit. Many need smoking cessation aids and counseling. Additionally, some smokers just don’t want to quit. Regarding workplace exposures, it often is not easy for someone just to change their job. Many are afraid to speak because they are afraid of losing their jobs. Everyone, not just patients with COPD, can benefit from increased physical activity, and all doctors know how difficult it is to motivate patients to do this.

The decision to initiate medications should be based on an individual patient’s symptoms and risk of exacerbations. In general, long-acting bronchodilators, including long-acting beta agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), are preferred except when immediate relief of dyspnea is needed, and then short-acting bronchodilators should be used. Either a single long-acting or dual long-acting bronchodilator can be initiated. If a patient continues to have dyspnea on a single long-acting bronchodilator, treatment should be switched to a dual therapy.

In general, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are not recommended for stable COPD patients. If a patient has exacerbations despite appropriate treatment with LABAs, an ICS may be added to the LABA, the GOLD guidelines say. Oral corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term use. PDE4 inhibitors should be considered in patents with severe to very severe airflow obstruction, chronic bronchitis, and exacerbations. Macrolide antibiotics, especially azithromycin, can be considered in acute exacerbations. There is no evidence to support the use of antitussives and mucolytics are advised in only certain patients. Inhaled bronchodilators are advised over oral ones and theophylline is recommended when long-acting bronchodilators are unavailable or unaffordable.

In clinical practice, I see many patients treated based on symptomatology with spirometry testing not being done. This may help control many symptoms, but unless my patient has an accurate diagnosis, I won’t know if my patient is receiving the correct treatment.

It is important to keep in mind that COPD is a progressive disease and without appropriate treatment and monitoring, it will just get worse, and this is most likely to be irreversible.

Medications and treatment goals for patients with COPD

Patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency may benefit from the addition of alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy, the new guidelines say. In patients with severe disease experiencing dyspnea, oral and parental opioids can be considered. Medications that are used to treat primary pulmonary hypertension are not advised to treat pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD.

The treatment goals of COPD should be to decrease severity of symptoms, reduce the occurrence of exacerbations, and improve exercise tolerance. Peripheral eosinophil counts can be used to guide the use of ICS to prevent exacerbations. However, the best predictor of exacerbations is previous exacerbations. Frequent exacerbations are defined as two or more annually. Additionally, deteriorating airflow is correlated with increased risk of exacerbations, hospitalizations, and death. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) alone lacks precision to predict exacerbations or death.

Vaccines and pulmonary rehabilitation recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommend several vaccines for stable patients with COPD. Influenza vaccine was shown to reduce serious complications in COPD patients. Pneumococcal vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) reduced the likelihood of COPD exacerbations. The COVID-19 vaccine also has been effective at reducing hospitalizations, in particular ICU admissions, and death in patients with COPD. The CDC also recommends TdaP and Zoster vaccines.

An acute exacerbation of COPD occurs when a patient experiences worsening of respiratory symptoms that requires additional treatment, according to the updated GOLD guidelines. They are usually associated with increased airway inflammation, mucous productions, and trapping of gases. They are often triggered by viral infections, but bacterial and environment factors play a role as well. Less commonly, fungi such as Aspergillus can be observed as well. COPD exacerbations contribute to overall progression of the disease.

In patients with hypoxemia, supplemental oxygen should be titrated to a target O₂ saturation of 88%-92%. It is important to follow blood gases to be sure adequate oxygenation is taking place while at the same time avoiding carbon dioxide retention and/or worsening acidosis. In patients with severe exacerbations whose dyspnea does not respond to initial emergency therapy, ICU admission is warranted. Other factors indicating the need for ICU admission include mental status changes, persistent or worsening hypoxemia, severe or worsening respiratory acidosis, the need for mechanical ventilation, and hemodynamic instability. Following an acute exacerbation, steps to prevent further exacerbations should be initiated.

Systemic glucocorticoids are indicated during acute exacerbations. They have been shown to hasten recovery time and improve functioning of the lungs as well as oxygenation. It is recommended to give prednisone 40 mg per day for 5 days. Antibiotics should be used in exacerbations if patients have dyspnea, sputum production, and purulence of the sputum or require mechanical ventilation. The choice of which antibiotic to use should be based on local bacterial resistance.

Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important component of COPD management. It incorporates exercise, education, and self-management aimed to change behavior and improve conditioning. The benefits of rehab have been shown to be considerable. The optimal length is 6-8 weeks. Palliative and end-of-life care are also very important factors to consider when treating COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidelines.

COPD is a very common disease and cause of mortality seen by family physicians. The GOLD report is an extensive document providing very clear guidelines and evidence to support these guidelines in every level of the treatment of COPD patients. As primary care doctors, we are often the first to treat patients with COPD and it is important to know the latest guidelines.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Visits to the emergency department for asthma increase more than a year before a failed inspection by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

While links between asthma and low-quality housing prone to harboring allergens have been well-documented, the current study takes the extra step of looking at housing down to the level of individual land parcels and suggests that asthma hospital visits can be used to identify hazardous housing earlier.

“Emergency department visits for asthma provide a leading indicator that can be used by health departments or housing authorities to direct housing inspections and remediation of poor housing conditions, track improvements in housing quality, measure housing department performance, support resident grievances, and inform funding allocation decisions,” said the study’s lead researcher, Elizabeth Samuels, MD, who is assistant professor of epidemiology and emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Researchers retrospectively looked at cases of children and adults in the Greater New Haven area of Connecticut seen at the Yale New Haven Hospital ED for asthma-related problems between March 2013 and August 2017. The region has the fifth-highest prevalence of asthma in the United States, the researchers point out, due to its air quality, pollens, and quality of its housing. More than half of residences were built before 1,940, compared with about 13% nationally. Patient addresses were matched with HUD inspection records.

The review encompassed 11,429 ED visits by 6,366 individuals; 54% were insured by Medicaid, and 42% were Black. Controlling for patient and neighborhood data, researchers found that increased asthma ED visits at the parcel level were associated with decreased HUD inspection scores to a highly significant degree (P < .001).

They also found that there was a relationship in terms of timing between asthma ED visits and inspection scores: asthma ED visits increased more than 1 year before a failed HUD inspection. They also found that asthma ED visits were not elevated at housing units that passed inspection. Using asthma ED visits to predict failed housing inspections produced a specificity rate of 92.3% in an adjusted model, Dr. Samuels noted.

“This approach represents a novel method of early identification of dangerous housing conditions, which could aid in the prevention of asthma-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Samuels said.

The investigators noted that, of the parcels with the top three incidence rates of asthma ED visits, “all of them have been closed or demolished.”

In addition to limiting exposure of patients with asthma to the allergens of mold, mice and rats, and cockroaches, improving poor-quality housing earlier could help asthma by reducing stress, she said.

“There is also an increasing evidence base that psychosocial stress increases the risk of asthma attacks, and it’s therefore possible that living in poor housing conditions – often highly stressful situations – drives exacerbation risk via this pathway,” she said. “Synergistic effects between these pathways are also possible or even likely.”

Neeta Thakur, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches asthma, said the findings could lead to a strategy for improving poor-quality housing more quickly. As it is, inspections are too infrequent, often prompted by resident complaints.

“Once the complaints get to a certain threshold, then there might be an inspection that happens, and if there is a periodic review of the buildings, they often happen few and far between,” she said. “We could actually use some of the information that we’re already getting from something like ED visits and see if there is a pattern.”

An important follow-up would be to see whether asthma outcomes improve after housing deficiencies are addressed and whether the predictive capacity of ED visits occurs in other places.

“Would you then see a decline in the ED visit rates from individuals living in those buildings?” Dr. Thakur said. “It’s important to find a leading indicator, but you want to be sure that that leading indicator is useful as something that can be intervened upon.”

Dr. Samuels and Dr. Thakur have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Visits to the emergency department for asthma increase more than a year before a failed inspection by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

While links between asthma and low-quality housing prone to harboring allergens have been well-documented, the current study takes the extra step of looking at housing down to the level of individual land parcels and suggests that asthma hospital visits can be used to identify hazardous housing earlier.

“Emergency department visits for asthma provide a leading indicator that can be used by health departments or housing authorities to direct housing inspections and remediation of poor housing conditions, track improvements in housing quality, measure housing department performance, support resident grievances, and inform funding allocation decisions,” said the study’s lead researcher, Elizabeth Samuels, MD, who is assistant professor of epidemiology and emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Researchers retrospectively looked at cases of children and adults in the Greater New Haven area of Connecticut seen at the Yale New Haven Hospital ED for asthma-related problems between March 2013 and August 2017. The region has the fifth-highest prevalence of asthma in the United States, the researchers point out, due to its air quality, pollens, and quality of its housing. More than half of residences were built before 1,940, compared with about 13% nationally. Patient addresses were matched with HUD inspection records.

The review encompassed 11,429 ED visits by 6,366 individuals; 54% were insured by Medicaid, and 42% were Black. Controlling for patient and neighborhood data, researchers found that increased asthma ED visits at the parcel level were associated with decreased HUD inspection scores to a highly significant degree (P < .001).

They also found that there was a relationship in terms of timing between asthma ED visits and inspection scores: asthma ED visits increased more than 1 year before a failed HUD inspection. They also found that asthma ED visits were not elevated at housing units that passed inspection. Using asthma ED visits to predict failed housing inspections produced a specificity rate of 92.3% in an adjusted model, Dr. Samuels noted.

“This approach represents a novel method of early identification of dangerous housing conditions, which could aid in the prevention of asthma-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Samuels said.

The investigators noted that, of the parcels with the top three incidence rates of asthma ED visits, “all of them have been closed or demolished.”

In addition to limiting exposure of patients with asthma to the allergens of mold, mice and rats, and cockroaches, improving poor-quality housing earlier could help asthma by reducing stress, she said.

“There is also an increasing evidence base that psychosocial stress increases the risk of asthma attacks, and it’s therefore possible that living in poor housing conditions – often highly stressful situations – drives exacerbation risk via this pathway,” she said. “Synergistic effects between these pathways are also possible or even likely.”

Neeta Thakur, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches asthma, said the findings could lead to a strategy for improving poor-quality housing more quickly. As it is, inspections are too infrequent, often prompted by resident complaints.

“Once the complaints get to a certain threshold, then there might be an inspection that happens, and if there is a periodic review of the buildings, they often happen few and far between,” she said. “We could actually use some of the information that we’re already getting from something like ED visits and see if there is a pattern.”

An important follow-up would be to see whether asthma outcomes improve after housing deficiencies are addressed and whether the predictive capacity of ED visits occurs in other places.

“Would you then see a decline in the ED visit rates from individuals living in those buildings?” Dr. Thakur said. “It’s important to find a leading indicator, but you want to be sure that that leading indicator is useful as something that can be intervened upon.”

Dr. Samuels and Dr. Thakur have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Visits to the emergency department for asthma increase more than a year before a failed inspection by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

While links between asthma and low-quality housing prone to harboring allergens have been well-documented, the current study takes the extra step of looking at housing down to the level of individual land parcels and suggests that asthma hospital visits can be used to identify hazardous housing earlier.

“Emergency department visits for asthma provide a leading indicator that can be used by health departments or housing authorities to direct housing inspections and remediation of poor housing conditions, track improvements in housing quality, measure housing department performance, support resident grievances, and inform funding allocation decisions,” said the study’s lead researcher, Elizabeth Samuels, MD, who is assistant professor of epidemiology and emergency medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Researchers retrospectively looked at cases of children and adults in the Greater New Haven area of Connecticut seen at the Yale New Haven Hospital ED for asthma-related problems between March 2013 and August 2017. The region has the fifth-highest prevalence of asthma in the United States, the researchers point out, due to its air quality, pollens, and quality of its housing. More than half of residences were built before 1,940, compared with about 13% nationally. Patient addresses were matched with HUD inspection records.

The review encompassed 11,429 ED visits by 6,366 individuals; 54% were insured by Medicaid, and 42% were Black. Controlling for patient and neighborhood data, researchers found that increased asthma ED visits at the parcel level were associated with decreased HUD inspection scores to a highly significant degree (P < .001).

They also found that there was a relationship in terms of timing between asthma ED visits and inspection scores: asthma ED visits increased more than 1 year before a failed HUD inspection. They also found that asthma ED visits were not elevated at housing units that passed inspection. Using asthma ED visits to predict failed housing inspections produced a specificity rate of 92.3% in an adjusted model, Dr. Samuels noted.

“This approach represents a novel method of early identification of dangerous housing conditions, which could aid in the prevention of asthma-related morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Samuels said.

The investigators noted that, of the parcels with the top three incidence rates of asthma ED visits, “all of them have been closed or demolished.”

In addition to limiting exposure of patients with asthma to the allergens of mold, mice and rats, and cockroaches, improving poor-quality housing earlier could help asthma by reducing stress, she said.

“There is also an increasing evidence base that psychosocial stress increases the risk of asthma attacks, and it’s therefore possible that living in poor housing conditions – often highly stressful situations – drives exacerbation risk via this pathway,” she said. “Synergistic effects between these pathways are also possible or even likely.”

Neeta Thakur, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches asthma, said the findings could lead to a strategy for improving poor-quality housing more quickly. As it is, inspections are too infrequent, often prompted by resident complaints.

“Once the complaints get to a certain threshold, then there might be an inspection that happens, and if there is a periodic review of the buildings, they often happen few and far between,” she said. “We could actually use some of the information that we’re already getting from something like ED visits and see if there is a pattern.”

An important follow-up would be to see whether asthma outcomes improve after housing deficiencies are addressed and whether the predictive capacity of ED visits occurs in other places.

“Would you then see a decline in the ED visit rates from individuals living in those buildings?” Dr. Thakur said. “It’s important to find a leading indicator, but you want to be sure that that leading indicator is useful as something that can be intervened upon.”

Dr. Samuels and Dr. Thakur have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – In a growing number of states, pulmonologists face serious legal consequences for advising women who have an underlying medical condition that places them at risk for life-threatening complications from pregnancy or childbirth, according to a panel of experts assembled for a special session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Following the June 24 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, several states were swift to enact tight restrictions on abortion. These restrictions include bans on elective abortions for almost any reason. Worded in various ways, the new laws typically include exceptions when the health of the mother is threatened, but these exceptions must be navigated carefully.

As a general rule, “there is no clear and specific definition of when the mother’s life is at risk. These laws are vague on purpose,” said Rebecca Cohen, MD, division chief, Complex Family Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The remarks were relevant to any clinician who advises women regarding pregnancy termination, but Dr. Cohen’s advice was tailored to pulmonologists. Advances have reduced the proportion of women with severe lung diseases, such as pulmonary arterial hypertension or interstitial lung disease, that make pregnancy untenable, but serious risks persist.

Clinicians need to assume a defensive posture, and the first step is to understand the laws, according to Dr. Cohen. For this, she recommended the nongovernmental Guttmacher Institute as a resource. With a focus on sexual and reproductive health, this research institute maintains a state-by-state summary of laws that govern pregnancy termination. The laws are being reconsidered across the country, and Dr. Cohen said the website updates its summaries accordingly.

In states with the most rigorous restrictions, the risks to physicians are substantial. Pulmonologists need to recognize that they might face legal consequences from merely advising a patient to terminate her pregnancy if the medical need is ambiguous or unclear, according to Dr. Cohen.

“If the advice is interpreted as aiding and abetting an elective abortion, it is a felony offense in some states,” Dr. Cohen said.

In states with restrictive laws, pregnancy prevention is the safest approach for women of childbearing age who face life-threatening complications in the event of pregnancy, according to Dr. Cohen. This might reasonably include a step beyond standard contraception. Dr. Cohen mentioned such approaches as period tracking to double down.

In addition, for women of childbearing age with health problems that might result in complications in the event of a pregnancy, it is appropriate to establish this fact in the medical record. This history could prove useful for maximizing options when making decisions in the best interest of the mother’s health in the event of contraception failure.

In addition, pulmonologists who counsel women about the potential for pregnancy termination should consider establishing a relationship with the legal department at the institution where they work, according to Dr. Cohen. In specific cases in which termination is recommended, she further advised building documentation with participation from additional medical specialists, such as an obstetrician who manages high-risk pregnancies.

“There is no guarantee that any given documentation is adequate,” Dr. Cohen warned. She indicated that consensus from multiple clinicians can strengthen the legal defense if one is necessary.

For some serious lung conditions that are incompatible with pregnancy, the threat to the mother’s life can occur early, according to Deborah Jo Levine, MD, a clinical instructor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

As a result, “you need to identify at-risk patients early and develop a plan promptly,” said Dr. Levine, who joined Dr. Cohen on the special panel at the CHEST 2022 meeting. Even when termination is medically appropriate, restrictive laws are making these services harder to find.

In the case of a pregnancy likely to pose a high risk of complications owing to the patient’s having lung disease, “it is important to involve a high-risk ob quickly,” Dr. Levine warned. “In some cases, termination poses less risk if performed early.”

Sunjay R. Devarajan, MD, assistant professor of pulmonary medicine and critical care, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, has faced this issue in a state that has some of the most restrictive laws. Even when there is no debate about the necessity of a medically indicated abortion, he cautioned that abortion services are becoming harder to find.

“A recent patient who had a complicated unintentional pregnancy on our service had to go out of state for pregnancy termination,” Dr. Devarajan said. He noted that this option is not available to all women, particularly in states such as his own in which most bordering states also now have highly restrictive abortion laws.

On the basis of this experience, he is thinking more defensively. Now that clinicians can be drawn into legal proceedings even when pregnancy termination is indicated, he agreed that clinicians must become familiar with the local laws.

“We are doing better in managing pregnancies in women with serious lung diseases, but termination is still the prudent approach in some cases,” Dr. Devarajan said. He indicated that he considered the advice offered by Dr. Cohen helpful in avoiding complications for the patient and the physician.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Levine, and Dr. Devarajan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – In a growing number of states, pulmonologists face serious legal consequences for advising women who have an underlying medical condition that places them at risk for life-threatening complications from pregnancy or childbirth, according to a panel of experts assembled for a special session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Following the June 24 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, several states were swift to enact tight restrictions on abortion. These restrictions include bans on elective abortions for almost any reason. Worded in various ways, the new laws typically include exceptions when the health of the mother is threatened, but these exceptions must be navigated carefully.

As a general rule, “there is no clear and specific definition of when the mother’s life is at risk. These laws are vague on purpose,” said Rebecca Cohen, MD, division chief, Complex Family Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The remarks were relevant to any clinician who advises women regarding pregnancy termination, but Dr. Cohen’s advice was tailored to pulmonologists. Advances have reduced the proportion of women with severe lung diseases, such as pulmonary arterial hypertension or interstitial lung disease, that make pregnancy untenable, but serious risks persist.

Clinicians need to assume a defensive posture, and the first step is to understand the laws, according to Dr. Cohen. For this, she recommended the nongovernmental Guttmacher Institute as a resource. With a focus on sexual and reproductive health, this research institute maintains a state-by-state summary of laws that govern pregnancy termination. The laws are being reconsidered across the country, and Dr. Cohen said the website updates its summaries accordingly.

In states with the most rigorous restrictions, the risks to physicians are substantial. Pulmonologists need to recognize that they might face legal consequences from merely advising a patient to terminate her pregnancy if the medical need is ambiguous or unclear, according to Dr. Cohen.

“If the advice is interpreted as aiding and abetting an elective abortion, it is a felony offense in some states,” Dr. Cohen said.

In states with restrictive laws, pregnancy prevention is the safest approach for women of childbearing age who face life-threatening complications in the event of pregnancy, according to Dr. Cohen. This might reasonably include a step beyond standard contraception. Dr. Cohen mentioned such approaches as period tracking to double down.

In addition, for women of childbearing age with health problems that might result in complications in the event of a pregnancy, it is appropriate to establish this fact in the medical record. This history could prove useful for maximizing options when making decisions in the best interest of the mother’s health in the event of contraception failure.

In addition, pulmonologists who counsel women about the potential for pregnancy termination should consider establishing a relationship with the legal department at the institution where they work, according to Dr. Cohen. In specific cases in which termination is recommended, she further advised building documentation with participation from additional medical specialists, such as an obstetrician who manages high-risk pregnancies.

“There is no guarantee that any given documentation is adequate,” Dr. Cohen warned. She indicated that consensus from multiple clinicians can strengthen the legal defense if one is necessary.

For some serious lung conditions that are incompatible with pregnancy, the threat to the mother’s life can occur early, according to Deborah Jo Levine, MD, a clinical instructor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

As a result, “you need to identify at-risk patients early and develop a plan promptly,” said Dr. Levine, who joined Dr. Cohen on the special panel at the CHEST 2022 meeting. Even when termination is medically appropriate, restrictive laws are making these services harder to find.

In the case of a pregnancy likely to pose a high risk of complications owing to the patient’s having lung disease, “it is important to involve a high-risk ob quickly,” Dr. Levine warned. “In some cases, termination poses less risk if performed early.”

Sunjay R. Devarajan, MD, assistant professor of pulmonary medicine and critical care, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, has faced this issue in a state that has some of the most restrictive laws. Even when there is no debate about the necessity of a medically indicated abortion, he cautioned that abortion services are becoming harder to find.

“A recent patient who had a complicated unintentional pregnancy on our service had to go out of state for pregnancy termination,” Dr. Devarajan said. He noted that this option is not available to all women, particularly in states such as his own in which most bordering states also now have highly restrictive abortion laws.

On the basis of this experience, he is thinking more defensively. Now that clinicians can be drawn into legal proceedings even when pregnancy termination is indicated, he agreed that clinicians must become familiar with the local laws.

“We are doing better in managing pregnancies in women with serious lung diseases, but termination is still the prudent approach in some cases,” Dr. Devarajan said. He indicated that he considered the advice offered by Dr. Cohen helpful in avoiding complications for the patient and the physician.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Levine, and Dr. Devarajan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE, TENN. – In a growing number of states, pulmonologists face serious legal consequences for advising women who have an underlying medical condition that places them at risk for life-threatening complications from pregnancy or childbirth, according to a panel of experts assembled for a special session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Following the June 24 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, several states were swift to enact tight restrictions on abortion. These restrictions include bans on elective abortions for almost any reason. Worded in various ways, the new laws typically include exceptions when the health of the mother is threatened, but these exceptions must be navigated carefully.

As a general rule, “there is no clear and specific definition of when the mother’s life is at risk. These laws are vague on purpose,” said Rebecca Cohen, MD, division chief, Complex Family Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The remarks were relevant to any clinician who advises women regarding pregnancy termination, but Dr. Cohen’s advice was tailored to pulmonologists. Advances have reduced the proportion of women with severe lung diseases, such as pulmonary arterial hypertension or interstitial lung disease, that make pregnancy untenable, but serious risks persist.

Clinicians need to assume a defensive posture, and the first step is to understand the laws, according to Dr. Cohen. For this, she recommended the nongovernmental Guttmacher Institute as a resource. With a focus on sexual and reproductive health, this research institute maintains a state-by-state summary of laws that govern pregnancy termination. The laws are being reconsidered across the country, and Dr. Cohen said the website updates its summaries accordingly.

In states with the most rigorous restrictions, the risks to physicians are substantial. Pulmonologists need to recognize that they might face legal consequences from merely advising a patient to terminate her pregnancy if the medical need is ambiguous or unclear, according to Dr. Cohen.

“If the advice is interpreted as aiding and abetting an elective abortion, it is a felony offense in some states,” Dr. Cohen said.

In states with restrictive laws, pregnancy prevention is the safest approach for women of childbearing age who face life-threatening complications in the event of pregnancy, according to Dr. Cohen. This might reasonably include a step beyond standard contraception. Dr. Cohen mentioned such approaches as period tracking to double down.

In addition, for women of childbearing age with health problems that might result in complications in the event of a pregnancy, it is appropriate to establish this fact in the medical record. This history could prove useful for maximizing options when making decisions in the best interest of the mother’s health in the event of contraception failure.

In addition, pulmonologists who counsel women about the potential for pregnancy termination should consider establishing a relationship with the legal department at the institution where they work, according to Dr. Cohen. In specific cases in which termination is recommended, she further advised building documentation with participation from additional medical specialists, such as an obstetrician who manages high-risk pregnancies.

“There is no guarantee that any given documentation is adequate,” Dr. Cohen warned. She indicated that consensus from multiple clinicians can strengthen the legal defense if one is necessary.

For some serious lung conditions that are incompatible with pregnancy, the threat to the mother’s life can occur early, according to Deborah Jo Levine, MD, a clinical instructor in the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

As a result, “you need to identify at-risk patients early and develop a plan promptly,” said Dr. Levine, who joined Dr. Cohen on the special panel at the CHEST 2022 meeting. Even when termination is medically appropriate, restrictive laws are making these services harder to find.

In the case of a pregnancy likely to pose a high risk of complications owing to the patient’s having lung disease, “it is important to involve a high-risk ob quickly,” Dr. Levine warned. “In some cases, termination poses less risk if performed early.”

Sunjay R. Devarajan, MD, assistant professor of pulmonary medicine and critical care, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, has faced this issue in a state that has some of the most restrictive laws. Even when there is no debate about the necessity of a medically indicated abortion, he cautioned that abortion services are becoming harder to find.

“A recent patient who had a complicated unintentional pregnancy on our service had to go out of state for pregnancy termination,” Dr. Devarajan said. He noted that this option is not available to all women, particularly in states such as his own in which most bordering states also now have highly restrictive abortion laws.

On the basis of this experience, he is thinking more defensively. Now that clinicians can be drawn into legal proceedings even when pregnancy termination is indicated, he agreed that clinicians must become familiar with the local laws.

“We are doing better in managing pregnancies in women with serious lung diseases, but termination is still the prudent approach in some cases,” Dr. Devarajan said. He indicated that he considered the advice offered by Dr. Cohen helpful in avoiding complications for the patient and the physician.

Dr. Cohen, Dr. Levine, and Dr. Devarajan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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