CHEST Physician

High levels of eosinophils had a protective effect for individuals who experienced acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on data from nearly 1,000 patients.

Several blood biomarkers are under investigation for links to acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), which remains one of the top three causes of death worldwide, wrote Riuying Wang, MD, of Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China, and colleagues.

“Numerous studies have shown the relationship between eosinophilia and clinical outcomes of patients with AECOPD. However, the evidence lacks consensus, and the research thresholds are controversial,” they said.

In a study published in Heart & Lung, the researchers reviewed data from 984 adults with AECOPD over a 3-year follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 71 years, and 78% were men. The patients’ blood eosinophil levels were grouped into three categories: EOS < 2%, EOS from 2% to < 3%, and 3% or higher. The researchers examined the association between eosinophilia and various comorbidities, treatment, and mortality.

Eosinophilia occurred in 477 cases. The prevalence of eosinophilia in the three groups was 36.48%, 22.87%, and 48.48% respectively, with eosinophilia defined as eosinophil counts of at least 100 cells per microliter, according to the report in Heart & Lung.

An EOS of 2% or higher was associated with significantly fewer cases of complicated pulmonary heart disease and atrial fibrillation than the lower EOS group. Similarly, patients in the EOS group of 2% or higher were less likely to use ventilators and systemic glucocorticoids and those in the EOS less than 2% group had significantly heavier airflow limitation, higher D-dimer, higher burden of infectious inflammation, and higher prevalence of respiratory failure than the other groups.

In addition, significantly fewer deaths occurred during the study period among patients with EOS of 2% or higher, compared with the lower EOS group (P < .01). The findings suggest that “Eosinophils can be used as a prognostic indicator of mortality in AECOPD,” the researchers said.

The researchers also used the area under the curve to examine the predictive value of EOS. The ROC curve showed that the indicators of AUC 0.5 included chest CT imaging, osteoporosis, mental illness, dust exposure, and being a former smoker; however, “the predictive value of EOS by the ROC curve was unstable. Further validation in large samples is needed,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and use of data from a single center, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the relatively small sample size and a lack of data on some clinical features and performance metrics, as well as lack of evaluation of chest CT subtypes.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies on infection and antibiotics and reviewed the optimal threshold of AECOPD, the researchers wrote. Based on their findings, “Eosinophils can not only guide clinical treatment but also be used as an index to predict the clinical outcome and prognosis of AECOPD patients,” they concluded.

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

High levels of eosinophils had a protective effect for individuals who experienced acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on data from nearly 1,000 patients.

Several blood biomarkers are under investigation for links to acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), which remains one of the top three causes of death worldwide, wrote Riuying Wang, MD, of Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China, and colleagues.

“Numerous studies have shown the relationship between eosinophilia and clinical outcomes of patients with AECOPD. However, the evidence lacks consensus, and the research thresholds are controversial,” they said.

In a study published in Heart & Lung, the researchers reviewed data from 984 adults with AECOPD over a 3-year follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 71 years, and 78% were men. The patients’ blood eosinophil levels were grouped into three categories: EOS < 2%, EOS from 2% to < 3%, and 3% or higher. The researchers examined the association between eosinophilia and various comorbidities, treatment, and mortality.

Eosinophilia occurred in 477 cases. The prevalence of eosinophilia in the three groups was 36.48%, 22.87%, and 48.48% respectively, with eosinophilia defined as eosinophil counts of at least 100 cells per microliter, according to the report in Heart & Lung.

An EOS of 2% or higher was associated with significantly fewer cases of complicated pulmonary heart disease and atrial fibrillation than the lower EOS group. Similarly, patients in the EOS group of 2% or higher were less likely to use ventilators and systemic glucocorticoids and those in the EOS less than 2% group had significantly heavier airflow limitation, higher D-dimer, higher burden of infectious inflammation, and higher prevalence of respiratory failure than the other groups.

In addition, significantly fewer deaths occurred during the study period among patients with EOS of 2% or higher, compared with the lower EOS group (P < .01). The findings suggest that “Eosinophils can be used as a prognostic indicator of mortality in AECOPD,” the researchers said.

The researchers also used the area under the curve to examine the predictive value of EOS. The ROC curve showed that the indicators of AUC 0.5 included chest CT imaging, osteoporosis, mental illness, dust exposure, and being a former smoker; however, “the predictive value of EOS by the ROC curve was unstable. Further validation in large samples is needed,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and use of data from a single center, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the relatively small sample size and a lack of data on some clinical features and performance metrics, as well as lack of evaluation of chest CT subtypes.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies on infection and antibiotics and reviewed the optimal threshold of AECOPD, the researchers wrote. Based on their findings, “Eosinophils can not only guide clinical treatment but also be used as an index to predict the clinical outcome and prognosis of AECOPD patients,” they concluded.

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

High levels of eosinophils had a protective effect for individuals who experienced acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on data from nearly 1,000 patients.

Several blood biomarkers are under investigation for links to acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), which remains one of the top three causes of death worldwide, wrote Riuying Wang, MD, of Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China, and colleagues.

“Numerous studies have shown the relationship between eosinophilia and clinical outcomes of patients with AECOPD. However, the evidence lacks consensus, and the research thresholds are controversial,” they said.

In a study published in Heart & Lung, the researchers reviewed data from 984 adults with AECOPD over a 3-year follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 71 years, and 78% were men. The patients’ blood eosinophil levels were grouped into three categories: EOS < 2%, EOS from 2% to < 3%, and 3% or higher. The researchers examined the association between eosinophilia and various comorbidities, treatment, and mortality.

Eosinophilia occurred in 477 cases. The prevalence of eosinophilia in the three groups was 36.48%, 22.87%, and 48.48% respectively, with eosinophilia defined as eosinophil counts of at least 100 cells per microliter, according to the report in Heart & Lung.

An EOS of 2% or higher was associated with significantly fewer cases of complicated pulmonary heart disease and atrial fibrillation than the lower EOS group. Similarly, patients in the EOS group of 2% or higher were less likely to use ventilators and systemic glucocorticoids and those in the EOS less than 2% group had significantly heavier airflow limitation, higher D-dimer, higher burden of infectious inflammation, and higher prevalence of respiratory failure than the other groups.

In addition, significantly fewer deaths occurred during the study period among patients with EOS of 2% or higher, compared with the lower EOS group (P < .01). The findings suggest that “Eosinophils can be used as a prognostic indicator of mortality in AECOPD,” the researchers said.

The researchers also used the area under the curve to examine the predictive value of EOS. The ROC curve showed that the indicators of AUC 0.5 included chest CT imaging, osteoporosis, mental illness, dust exposure, and being a former smoker; however, “the predictive value of EOS by the ROC curve was unstable. Further validation in large samples is needed,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and use of data from a single center, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the relatively small sample size and a lack of data on some clinical features and performance metrics, as well as lack of evaluation of chest CT subtypes.

However, the results are consistent with previous studies on infection and antibiotics and reviewed the optimal threshold of AECOPD, the researchers wrote. Based on their findings, “Eosinophils can not only guide clinical treatment but also be used as an index to predict the clinical outcome and prognosis of AECOPD patients,” they concluded.

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

People who snore frequently, even those who don’t have sleep apnea, may be less physically active during the day, new research shows.

“People who snore are also likely to have sleep apnea, but those who snore and don’t have sleep apnea are a largely understudied group,” senior author Michael Grandner, PhD, told this news organization.

“We found that even just snoring alone can impact health and well-being,” said Dr. Grandner, director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A viscous cycle

Frequent snoring can signal sleep-disordered breathing, which is associated with a myriad of comorbidities, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Prior studies have shown that sleep-disordered breathing is associated with less physical activity, but few studies have examined this at the population level or in relation to primary snoring.

Dr. Grandner and colleagues evaluated the relationship between snoring frequency and minutes of sedentary activity using 3 years’ worth of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants reported snoring frequency and sedentary activity.

After adjusting for sex, age, race, education level, and marital status, adults who were frequent snorers (5+ nights per week) spent about 36 more minutes per day sedentary, compared with peers who reported never snoring.

In addition, those individuals who were determined to be at increased risk of having sleep apnea had about 54 more minutes per day of sedentary time in the adjusted model.

“Snoring is very common, and it doesn’t just affect the nighttime,” said Dr. Grandner.

Snoring can lead to “more tiredness and less energy, which can impact everything from mood to stress to – as we saw – activity level,” he noted.

Commenting on the results for this news organization, Raman Malhotra, MD, of the Washington University Sleep Center in St. Louis, said this study clearly demonstrates how people who snore and people who are at risk for sleep apnea are more sedentary.

This could explain the “vicious cycle” that these patients suffer from, inasmuch as having obesity can lead to sleep apnea, and having sleep apnea can lead to further sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, owing to lack of energy and feeling tired, Dr. Malhotra told this news organization.

“It is important to intervene and treat the sleep disorder to hopefully make people more active,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Grandner and Dr. Malhotra disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who snore frequently, even those who don’t have sleep apnea, may be less physically active during the day, new research shows.

“People who snore are also likely to have sleep apnea, but those who snore and don’t have sleep apnea are a largely understudied group,” senior author Michael Grandner, PhD, told this news organization.

“We found that even just snoring alone can impact health and well-being,” said Dr. Grandner, director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A viscous cycle

Frequent snoring can signal sleep-disordered breathing, which is associated with a myriad of comorbidities, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Prior studies have shown that sleep-disordered breathing is associated with less physical activity, but few studies have examined this at the population level or in relation to primary snoring.

Dr. Grandner and colleagues evaluated the relationship between snoring frequency and minutes of sedentary activity using 3 years’ worth of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants reported snoring frequency and sedentary activity.

After adjusting for sex, age, race, education level, and marital status, adults who were frequent snorers (5+ nights per week) spent about 36 more minutes per day sedentary, compared with peers who reported never snoring.

In addition, those individuals who were determined to be at increased risk of having sleep apnea had about 54 more minutes per day of sedentary time in the adjusted model.

“Snoring is very common, and it doesn’t just affect the nighttime,” said Dr. Grandner.

Snoring can lead to “more tiredness and less energy, which can impact everything from mood to stress to – as we saw – activity level,” he noted.

Commenting on the results for this news organization, Raman Malhotra, MD, of the Washington University Sleep Center in St. Louis, said this study clearly demonstrates how people who snore and people who are at risk for sleep apnea are more sedentary.

This could explain the “vicious cycle” that these patients suffer from, inasmuch as having obesity can lead to sleep apnea, and having sleep apnea can lead to further sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, owing to lack of energy and feeling tired, Dr. Malhotra told this news organization.

“It is important to intervene and treat the sleep disorder to hopefully make people more active,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Grandner and Dr. Malhotra disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who snore frequently, even those who don’t have sleep apnea, may be less physically active during the day, new research shows.

“People who snore are also likely to have sleep apnea, but those who snore and don’t have sleep apnea are a largely understudied group,” senior author Michael Grandner, PhD, told this news organization.

“We found that even just snoring alone can impact health and well-being,” said Dr. Grandner, director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A viscous cycle

Frequent snoring can signal sleep-disordered breathing, which is associated with a myriad of comorbidities, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Prior studies have shown that sleep-disordered breathing is associated with less physical activity, but few studies have examined this at the population level or in relation to primary snoring.

Dr. Grandner and colleagues evaluated the relationship between snoring frequency and minutes of sedentary activity using 3 years’ worth of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants reported snoring frequency and sedentary activity.

After adjusting for sex, age, race, education level, and marital status, adults who were frequent snorers (5+ nights per week) spent about 36 more minutes per day sedentary, compared with peers who reported never snoring.

In addition, those individuals who were determined to be at increased risk of having sleep apnea had about 54 more minutes per day of sedentary time in the adjusted model.

“Snoring is very common, and it doesn’t just affect the nighttime,” said Dr. Grandner.

Snoring can lead to “more tiredness and less energy, which can impact everything from mood to stress to – as we saw – activity level,” he noted.

Commenting on the results for this news organization, Raman Malhotra, MD, of the Washington University Sleep Center in St. Louis, said this study clearly demonstrates how people who snore and people who are at risk for sleep apnea are more sedentary.

This could explain the “vicious cycle” that these patients suffer from, inasmuch as having obesity can lead to sleep apnea, and having sleep apnea can lead to further sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, owing to lack of energy and feeling tired, Dr. Malhotra told this news organization.

“It is important to intervene and treat the sleep disorder to hopefully make people more active,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Grandner and Dr. Malhotra disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

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

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Poor sleep quality was linked to an increased risk of life-threatening exacerbations in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.

Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.

COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.

Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.

There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).

In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
 

Surprising findings

These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.

“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.

The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.

Poor sleep quality was linked to an increased risk of life-threatening exacerbations in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.

Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.

COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.

Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.

There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).

In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
 

Surprising findings

These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.

“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.

The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.

Poor sleep quality was linked to an increased risk of life-threatening exacerbations in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.

Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.

COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.

Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.

There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).

In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
 

Surprising findings

These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.

“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.

The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An online survey captured mixed information about people’s willingness to undergo surgery during a viral pandemic in relation to the vaccine status of the patient and staff. The findings showcase opportunities for public education and “skillful messaging,” researchers report.

In survey scenarios that asked people to imagine their vaccination status, people were more willing to undergo surgery if it was lifesaving, rather than elective, especially if vaccinated. The prospect of no hospital stay tipped the scales further toward surgery. The vaccination status of hospital staff played only a minor role in decision making, according to the study, which was published in Vaccine.

But as a post hoc analysis revealed, it was participants who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 in real life who were more willing to undergo surgery, compared with those who had one or two shots.

In either case, too many people were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery, even though the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 is low. “Making this choice for an actual health problem would result in an unacceptably high rate of potential morbidity attributable to pandemic-related fears, the authors wrote.

In an unusual approach, the researchers used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to electronically recruit 2,006 adults. The participants answered a 26-item survey about a hypothetical surgery in an unnamed pandemic with different combinations of vaccine status for patient and staff.

Coauthor and anesthesiologist Keith J. Ruskin, MD, of the University of Chicago, told this news organization that they “wanted to make this timeless” and independent of COVID “so that when the next thing came about, the paper would still be relevant.”

The researchers were surprised by the findings at the extreme ends of attitudes toward surgery. Some were still willing to have elective surgery with (hypothetically) unvaccinated patients and staff.

“And people at the other end, even though they are vaccinated, the hospital staff is vaccinated, and the surgery is lifesaving, they absolutely won’t have surgery,” Dr. Ruskin said.

He viewed these two groups as opportunities for education. “You can present information in the most positive light to get them to do the right thing with what’s best for themselves,” he said.

As an example, Dr. Ruskin pointed to an ad in Illinois. “It’s not only people saying I’m getting vaccinated for myself and my family, but there are people who said I got vaccinated and I still got COVID, but it could have been much worse. Please, if you’re on the fence, just get vaccinated,” he said.

Coauthor Anna Clebone Ruskin, MD, an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago, said, “Humans are programmed to see things in extremes. With surgery, people tend to think of surgery as a monolith – surgery is all good, or surgery is all bad, where there is a huge in between. So we saw those extremes. ... Seeing that dichotomy with people on either end was pretty surprising.

“Getting surgery is not always good. Getting surgery is not always bad. It’s a risk-versus-benefit analysis and educating the public to consider the risks and benefits of medical decisions, in general, would be enormously beneficial,” she said.

A post hoc analysis found that “participants who were not actually vaccinated against COVID-19 were generally more willing to undergo surgery compared to those who had one vaccination or two vaccinations,” the authors wrote.

In a second post hoc finding, participants who reported high wariness of vaccines were generally more likely to be willing to undergo surgery. Notably, 15% of participants “were unwilling to undergo lifesaving surgery during a pandemic even when they and the health care staff were vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Keith J. Ruskin hypothesized about this result, saying, “What we think is that potentially actually getting vaccinated against COVID-19 may indicate that you have a lower risk tolerance. So you may be less likely to do anything you perceive to be risky if you’re vaccinated against COVID-19.”

The authors stated that “the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 even prior to vaccination is vanishingly small.” The risk of nosocomial COVID varies among different studies. An EPIC-based study between April 2020 and October 2021 found the risk to be 1.8%; EPIC describes the fears of a patient catching COVID at a hospital as “likely unfounded.”

In the United Kingdom, the risk was as high as 24% earlier in the pandemic and then declined to approximately 5% a year ago. Omicron also brought more infections. Rates varied significantly among hospitals – and, notably, the risk of death from a nosocomial COVID infection was 21% in April-September 2020.

Emily Landon, MD, an epidemiologist and executive medical director for infection prevention and control at the University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization that the study’s data were collected during Delta, a “time when we thought that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But there was serious politicization of the vaccine.”

Dr. Landon said one of the study’s strengths was the large number of participants. A limitation was, “You’re going to have less participants who are generally poor and indigent, and fewer old participants, probably because they’re less likely to respond to an online survey.

“But the most interesting results are that people who were wary of vaccines or who hadn’t been vaccinated, were much more willing to undergo surgical procedures in the time of a pandemic, regardless of status, which reflects the fact that not being vaccinated correlates with not worrying much about COVID. Vaccinated individuals had a lot more wariness about undergoing surgical procedures during a pandemic.”

It appeared “individuals who were vaccinated in real life [were] worried about staff vaccination,” Dr. Landon noted. She concluded, “I think it supports the need for mandatory vaccinations in health care workers.”

The study has implications for hospital vaccination policies and practices. In Cumberland, Md., when COVID was high and vaccines first became available, the Maryland Hospital Association said that all health care staff should be vaccinated. The local hospital, UPMC–Western Maryland Hospital, refused.

Two months later, the local news reporter, Teresa McMinn, wrote, “While Maryland’s largest hospital systems have ‘led by example by mandating vaccines for all of their hospital staff,’ other facilities – including UPMC Western Maryland and Garrett Regional Medical Center – have taken no such action even though it’s been 8 months since vaccines were made available to health care workers.”

The hospital would not tell patients whether staff were vaccinated, either. An ongoing concern for members of the community is the lack of communication with UPMC, which erodes trust in the health system – the only hospital available in this rural community.

This vaccine study supports that the vaccination status of the staff may influence some patients’ decision on whether to have surgery.

The Ruskins and Dr. Landon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The underlying cause of David Bennett’s death on March 8, two months after he received the heart of a genetically altered pig, remains unknown and is only slightly less mysterious for what can likely be ruled out, suggests a progress report on the case from the director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program where the pioneering surgery took place.

Mr. Bennett died in “diastolic heart failure,” reported Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, “but the mechanism is still under investigation.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

Rocky clinical course

Early characterizations of the patient’s death focused more on his diminished, end-stage clinical condition at the time of the surgery than on immune rejection or other direct effects of the xenograft or on the first-of-its-kind procedure itself.

The 57-year-old Mr. Bennett had presented to the University of Maryland team with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, on multiple inotropes, and requiring an intra-aortic balloon pump, Dr. Mohiuddin said in his ATC presentation. The patient had suffered multiple arrests and resuscitations, and by the time of surgery had been hospitalized for almost 2 months, including 40 days on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

The transplant procedure itself went as planned until removal of the aortic cross clamp, which triggered a type-A aortic dissection. “We put a graft in the ascending aorta and a stent in the descending aorta. Even after 2 days, we found the dissection extending to the renal artery, so we had to go back and also put a stent in the renal artery,” Dr. Mohiuddin said.

Mr. Bennett also underwent two exploratory laparotomies in the first 10 days after transplantation, after CT imaging revealed signs of possible bowel inflammation and ischemia.

Further, he had to fight back a series of infections that led to major changes to his experimental drug regimen, which included immunosuppressants methylprednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), the investigational anti-CD40 antibody KPL-404 (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals), and the anti-inflammatories etanercept (Enbrel) and tocilizumab (Actemra).

One episode of sepsis, in particular, forced temporary withdrawal of MMF and a reduction in methylprednisolone dosage. It’s unknown whether the 30-day MMF suspension played a role in Mr. Bennett’s ultimate clinical deterioration and death, but it’s “highly possible,” Dr. Mohiuddin said in an interview.

Realistically, Mr. Bennett’s death was likely “multifactorial,” Dr. Mohiuddin said. He was in such poor clinical condition going into the procedure, and afterward confronted so many clinical challenges, that “it’s very difficult to say that one thing caused it.”

That hasn’t lessened speculation that the patient’s heart failed secondary to immunologic rejection or PCMV infection, either in Mr. Bennett or the donor pig.
 

A role for PCMV?

Weeks after Mr. Bennett’s death, as previously reported, his surgeon announced at a public forum that PCMV had been identified in the transplanted heart and in tissues of the donor pig. Mr. Bennett’s circulation showed traces of the viral DNA but not of the virus itself.

The presence of PCMV in transplanted porcine hearts is a well-recognized potential hazard in animal models but is considered avoidable with proper screening. In Mr. Bennett’s case, preoperative screening of the pig donor missed signs of the virus.  

Still, PCMV could potentially have contributed to Mr. Bennett’s death, acknowledged Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, who had announced the PCMV finding in an AST-sponsored April 20 webcast.

Preclinical evidence does suggest that PCMV can harm a xenograft organ, observed David H. Sachs, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, from the audience during the comment period after Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

“Each species has a CMV, and they’re quite species-specific,” observed the renowned surgeon and xenotransplantation immunologist. “We showed almost 10 years ago that if PCMV was in a pig kidney, it led to a much shortened survival of the pig kidney in a baboon. There was never any evidence, however, that the CMV infected the baboon or any baboon cells.”

Dr. Sachs asked Dr. Mohiuddin for confirmation that Mr. Bennett displayed no more than DNAemia, circulating cell-free PCMV DNA presumably shed from the porcine heart, but no sign of the virus itself outside of the heart’s porcine cells.

Cell-free DNA had shown up in Mr. Bennett’s circulation about 20 days after the surgery, with concentrations rising until at least day 50. Post-hoc polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing disclosed PCMV only in the pig’s spleen and porcine cells of the transplanted heart, Dr. Mohiuddin noted.

“We have not found any evidence that the patient was infected by PCMV,” nor was there evidence of any disease related to PCMV, Dr. Mohiuddin replied.

Nor of ongoing rejection

Mr. Bennett’s new heart passed a critical test in the first post-implantation hours by avoiding acute rejection, a potentially disastrous outcome that three of the pig’s 10 gene edits had been designed to prevent.

Although chronic immune rejection was always a concern despite Mr. Bennett’s novel immunosuppressant regimen, myocardial biopsy on postoperative days 34, 50, and 56 and necropsy showed “no signs of typical xenograft rejection,” Dr. Mohiuddin said at the ATC presentation. But “there’s a chance of atypical rejection which we were not accustomed to.”

By day 50, his diastolic function showed echocardiographic signs of deterioration, and “we started seeing interstitial edema with some extravasation of red blood cells, which we thought would resolve over a period of time,” he said. Eventually, however, “we saw that turn into fibroblasts and scar tissue.”

Mr. Bennett once again went on veno-arterial ECMO but died 10 days later. Once they had seen histologic evidence of fibrosis, Dr. Mohiuddin told this news organization, the team believed the myocardial injury was irreversible. “That was the reason we gave up on recovery.”

Mr. Bennett’s xenotransplantation journey has taught the field a lot, he said. “By no means was this a failure; we consider this a huge success. You can do all the experiments in animal models, but you won’t find out the true mechanism of rejection unless you do these kinds of human experiments.”
 

Looking ahead to clinical trials

Research involving humans is always subject to vagaries of human nature, including degree of adherence to prescribed therapy and – in xenotransplantation – precautions in place to mitigate any risks to public health. Such risks theoretically include transfer of porcine viruses or other pathogens to the patient and subsequent release into the general population.

Looking ahead to the possibility of clinical trials after this successful xenotransplantation experience, transplant nephrologist and epidemiologist Peter P. Reese, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the potentially controversial issue in discussion following Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

It’s known that Mr. Bennett had been repeatedly turned down for a conventional allograft transplant primarily because of his history of treatment noncompliance. Should such a record, Dr. Reese asked, be a relative contraindication to enrollment in any future xenotransplantation trials? Or does the field need a standardized gauge of a patient’s readiness, once discharged, to adhere not only to all medications – including those that fight infection – but also with rules established for public safety, such as routine contact reporting?

“It makes me wonder about choosing a noncompliant patient for these trials,” Dr. Reese said. “If we discharge a patient from the hospital who is at risk for a zoonotic infection that could spread if they basically refuse to cooperate with us or with public health authorities, it really could have negative consequences for the reputation of the field.”

Dr. Mohiuddin agreed such concerns are valid. Mr. Bennett “and all his immediate contacts” signed consent forms acknowledging their willingness to be followed should he be discharged. Mr. Bennett himself “signed a consent to inform us if he has any other intimate contact with someone,” he said in an interview.

“But those are only on paper.” Had Mr. Bennett survived to be discharged, Dr. Mohuiddin said, “no one knows how he would have behaved.”

Dr. Mohiuddin said the research staff had prepared to monitor Mr. Bennett at his home if that’s what it took. “We were ready to follow him as long as we could. There was a surveillance plan in place.”

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

The underlying cause of David Bennett’s death on March 8, two months after he received the heart of a genetically altered pig, remains unknown and is only slightly less mysterious for what can likely be ruled out, suggests a progress report on the case from the director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program where the pioneering surgery took place.

Mr. Bennett died in “diastolic heart failure,” reported Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, “but the mechanism is still under investigation.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

Rocky clinical course

Early characterizations of the patient’s death focused more on his diminished, end-stage clinical condition at the time of the surgery than on immune rejection or other direct effects of the xenograft or on the first-of-its-kind procedure itself.

The 57-year-old Mr. Bennett had presented to the University of Maryland team with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, on multiple inotropes, and requiring an intra-aortic balloon pump, Dr. Mohiuddin said in his ATC presentation. The patient had suffered multiple arrests and resuscitations, and by the time of surgery had been hospitalized for almost 2 months, including 40 days on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

The transplant procedure itself went as planned until removal of the aortic cross clamp, which triggered a type-A aortic dissection. “We put a graft in the ascending aorta and a stent in the descending aorta. Even after 2 days, we found the dissection extending to the renal artery, so we had to go back and also put a stent in the renal artery,” Dr. Mohiuddin said.

Mr. Bennett also underwent two exploratory laparotomies in the first 10 days after transplantation, after CT imaging revealed signs of possible bowel inflammation and ischemia.

Further, he had to fight back a series of infections that led to major changes to his experimental drug regimen, which included immunosuppressants methylprednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), the investigational anti-CD40 antibody KPL-404 (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals), and the anti-inflammatories etanercept (Enbrel) and tocilizumab (Actemra).

One episode of sepsis, in particular, forced temporary withdrawal of MMF and a reduction in methylprednisolone dosage. It’s unknown whether the 30-day MMF suspension played a role in Mr. Bennett’s ultimate clinical deterioration and death, but it’s “highly possible,” Dr. Mohiuddin said in an interview.

Realistically, Mr. Bennett’s death was likely “multifactorial,” Dr. Mohiuddin said. He was in such poor clinical condition going into the procedure, and afterward confronted so many clinical challenges, that “it’s very difficult to say that one thing caused it.”

That hasn’t lessened speculation that the patient’s heart failed secondary to immunologic rejection or PCMV infection, either in Mr. Bennett or the donor pig.
 

A role for PCMV?

Weeks after Mr. Bennett’s death, as previously reported, his surgeon announced at a public forum that PCMV had been identified in the transplanted heart and in tissues of the donor pig. Mr. Bennett’s circulation showed traces of the viral DNA but not of the virus itself.

The presence of PCMV in transplanted porcine hearts is a well-recognized potential hazard in animal models but is considered avoidable with proper screening. In Mr. Bennett’s case, preoperative screening of the pig donor missed signs of the virus.  

Still, PCMV could potentially have contributed to Mr. Bennett’s death, acknowledged Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, who had announced the PCMV finding in an AST-sponsored April 20 webcast.

Preclinical evidence does suggest that PCMV can harm a xenograft organ, observed David H. Sachs, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, from the audience during the comment period after Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

“Each species has a CMV, and they’re quite species-specific,” observed the renowned surgeon and xenotransplantation immunologist. “We showed almost 10 years ago that if PCMV was in a pig kidney, it led to a much shortened survival of the pig kidney in a baboon. There was never any evidence, however, that the CMV infected the baboon or any baboon cells.”

Dr. Sachs asked Dr. Mohiuddin for confirmation that Mr. Bennett displayed no more than DNAemia, circulating cell-free PCMV DNA presumably shed from the porcine heart, but no sign of the virus itself outside of the heart’s porcine cells.

Cell-free DNA had shown up in Mr. Bennett’s circulation about 20 days after the surgery, with concentrations rising until at least day 50. Post-hoc polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing disclosed PCMV only in the pig’s spleen and porcine cells of the transplanted heart, Dr. Mohiuddin noted.

“We have not found any evidence that the patient was infected by PCMV,” nor was there evidence of any disease related to PCMV, Dr. Mohiuddin replied.

Nor of ongoing rejection

Mr. Bennett’s new heart passed a critical test in the first post-implantation hours by avoiding acute rejection, a potentially disastrous outcome that three of the pig’s 10 gene edits had been designed to prevent.

Although chronic immune rejection was always a concern despite Mr. Bennett’s novel immunosuppressant regimen, myocardial biopsy on postoperative days 34, 50, and 56 and necropsy showed “no signs of typical xenograft rejection,” Dr. Mohiuddin said at the ATC presentation. But “there’s a chance of atypical rejection which we were not accustomed to.”

By day 50, his diastolic function showed echocardiographic signs of deterioration, and “we started seeing interstitial edema with some extravasation of red blood cells, which we thought would resolve over a period of time,” he said. Eventually, however, “we saw that turn into fibroblasts and scar tissue.”

Mr. Bennett once again went on veno-arterial ECMO but died 10 days later. Once they had seen histologic evidence of fibrosis, Dr. Mohiuddin told this news organization, the team believed the myocardial injury was irreversible. “That was the reason we gave up on recovery.”

Mr. Bennett’s xenotransplantation journey has taught the field a lot, he said. “By no means was this a failure; we consider this a huge success. You can do all the experiments in animal models, but you won’t find out the true mechanism of rejection unless you do these kinds of human experiments.”
 

Looking ahead to clinical trials

Research involving humans is always subject to vagaries of human nature, including degree of adherence to prescribed therapy and – in xenotransplantation – precautions in place to mitigate any risks to public health. Such risks theoretically include transfer of porcine viruses or other pathogens to the patient and subsequent release into the general population.

Looking ahead to the possibility of clinical trials after this successful xenotransplantation experience, transplant nephrologist and epidemiologist Peter P. Reese, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the potentially controversial issue in discussion following Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

It’s known that Mr. Bennett had been repeatedly turned down for a conventional allograft transplant primarily because of his history of treatment noncompliance. Should such a record, Dr. Reese asked, be a relative contraindication to enrollment in any future xenotransplantation trials? Or does the field need a standardized gauge of a patient’s readiness, once discharged, to adhere not only to all medications – including those that fight infection – but also with rules established for public safety, such as routine contact reporting?

“It makes me wonder about choosing a noncompliant patient for these trials,” Dr. Reese said. “If we discharge a patient from the hospital who is at risk for a zoonotic infection that could spread if they basically refuse to cooperate with us or with public health authorities, it really could have negative consequences for the reputation of the field.”

Dr. Mohiuddin agreed such concerns are valid. Mr. Bennett “and all his immediate contacts” signed consent forms acknowledging their willingness to be followed should he be discharged. Mr. Bennett himself “signed a consent to inform us if he has any other intimate contact with someone,” he said in an interview.

“But those are only on paper.” Had Mr. Bennett survived to be discharged, Dr. Mohuiddin said, “no one knows how he would have behaved.”

Dr. Mohiuddin said the research staff had prepared to monitor Mr. Bennett at his home if that’s what it took. “We were ready to follow him as long as we could. There was a surveillance plan in place.”

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

The underlying cause of David Bennett’s death on March 8, two months after he received the heart of a genetically altered pig, remains unknown and is only slightly less mysterious for what can likely be ruled out, suggests a progress report on the case from the director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program where the pioneering surgery took place.

Mr. Bennett died in “diastolic heart failure,” reported Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MBBS, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, “but the mechanism is still under investigation.”

University of Maryland Medical Center

Rocky clinical course

Early characterizations of the patient’s death focused more on his diminished, end-stage clinical condition at the time of the surgery than on immune rejection or other direct effects of the xenograft or on the first-of-its-kind procedure itself.

The 57-year-old Mr. Bennett had presented to the University of Maryland team with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, on multiple inotropes, and requiring an intra-aortic balloon pump, Dr. Mohiuddin said in his ATC presentation. The patient had suffered multiple arrests and resuscitations, and by the time of surgery had been hospitalized for almost 2 months, including 40 days on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

The transplant procedure itself went as planned until removal of the aortic cross clamp, which triggered a type-A aortic dissection. “We put a graft in the ascending aorta and a stent in the descending aorta. Even after 2 days, we found the dissection extending to the renal artery, so we had to go back and also put a stent in the renal artery,” Dr. Mohiuddin said.

Mr. Bennett also underwent two exploratory laparotomies in the first 10 days after transplantation, after CT imaging revealed signs of possible bowel inflammation and ischemia.

Further, he had to fight back a series of infections that led to major changes to his experimental drug regimen, which included immunosuppressants methylprednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), the investigational anti-CD40 antibody KPL-404 (Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals), and the anti-inflammatories etanercept (Enbrel) and tocilizumab (Actemra).

One episode of sepsis, in particular, forced temporary withdrawal of MMF and a reduction in methylprednisolone dosage. It’s unknown whether the 30-day MMF suspension played a role in Mr. Bennett’s ultimate clinical deterioration and death, but it’s “highly possible,” Dr. Mohiuddin said in an interview.

Realistically, Mr. Bennett’s death was likely “multifactorial,” Dr. Mohiuddin said. He was in such poor clinical condition going into the procedure, and afterward confronted so many clinical challenges, that “it’s very difficult to say that one thing caused it.”

That hasn’t lessened speculation that the patient’s heart failed secondary to immunologic rejection or PCMV infection, either in Mr. Bennett or the donor pig.
 

A role for PCMV?

Weeks after Mr. Bennett’s death, as previously reported, his surgeon announced at a public forum that PCMV had been identified in the transplanted heart and in tissues of the donor pig. Mr. Bennett’s circulation showed traces of the viral DNA but not of the virus itself.

The presence of PCMV in transplanted porcine hearts is a well-recognized potential hazard in animal models but is considered avoidable with proper screening. In Mr. Bennett’s case, preoperative screening of the pig donor missed signs of the virus.  

Still, PCMV could potentially have contributed to Mr. Bennett’s death, acknowledged Bartley P. Griffith, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, who had announced the PCMV finding in an AST-sponsored April 20 webcast.

Preclinical evidence does suggest that PCMV can harm a xenograft organ, observed David H. Sachs, MD, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, from the audience during the comment period after Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

“Each species has a CMV, and they’re quite species-specific,” observed the renowned surgeon and xenotransplantation immunologist. “We showed almost 10 years ago that if PCMV was in a pig kidney, it led to a much shortened survival of the pig kidney in a baboon. There was never any evidence, however, that the CMV infected the baboon or any baboon cells.”

Dr. Sachs asked Dr. Mohiuddin for confirmation that Mr. Bennett displayed no more than DNAemia, circulating cell-free PCMV DNA presumably shed from the porcine heart, but no sign of the virus itself outside of the heart’s porcine cells.

Cell-free DNA had shown up in Mr. Bennett’s circulation about 20 days after the surgery, with concentrations rising until at least day 50. Post-hoc polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing disclosed PCMV only in the pig’s spleen and porcine cells of the transplanted heart, Dr. Mohiuddin noted.

“We have not found any evidence that the patient was infected by PCMV,” nor was there evidence of any disease related to PCMV, Dr. Mohiuddin replied.

Nor of ongoing rejection

Mr. Bennett’s new heart passed a critical test in the first post-implantation hours by avoiding acute rejection, a potentially disastrous outcome that three of the pig’s 10 gene edits had been designed to prevent.

Although chronic immune rejection was always a concern despite Mr. Bennett’s novel immunosuppressant regimen, myocardial biopsy on postoperative days 34, 50, and 56 and necropsy showed “no signs of typical xenograft rejection,” Dr. Mohiuddin said at the ATC presentation. But “there’s a chance of atypical rejection which we were not accustomed to.”

By day 50, his diastolic function showed echocardiographic signs of deterioration, and “we started seeing interstitial edema with some extravasation of red blood cells, which we thought would resolve over a period of time,” he said. Eventually, however, “we saw that turn into fibroblasts and scar tissue.”

Mr. Bennett once again went on veno-arterial ECMO but died 10 days later. Once they had seen histologic evidence of fibrosis, Dr. Mohiuddin told this news organization, the team believed the myocardial injury was irreversible. “That was the reason we gave up on recovery.”

Mr. Bennett’s xenotransplantation journey has taught the field a lot, he said. “By no means was this a failure; we consider this a huge success. You can do all the experiments in animal models, but you won’t find out the true mechanism of rejection unless you do these kinds of human experiments.”
 

Looking ahead to clinical trials

Research involving humans is always subject to vagaries of human nature, including degree of adherence to prescribed therapy and – in xenotransplantation – precautions in place to mitigate any risks to public health. Such risks theoretically include transfer of porcine viruses or other pathogens to the patient and subsequent release into the general population.

Looking ahead to the possibility of clinical trials after this successful xenotransplantation experience, transplant nephrologist and epidemiologist Peter P. Reese, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, raised the potentially controversial issue in discussion following Dr. Mohiuddin’s presentation.

It’s known that Mr. Bennett had been repeatedly turned down for a conventional allograft transplant primarily because of his history of treatment noncompliance. Should such a record, Dr. Reese asked, be a relative contraindication to enrollment in any future xenotransplantation trials? Or does the field need a standardized gauge of a patient’s readiness, once discharged, to adhere not only to all medications – including those that fight infection – but also with rules established for public safety, such as routine contact reporting?

“It makes me wonder about choosing a noncompliant patient for these trials,” Dr. Reese said. “If we discharge a patient from the hospital who is at risk for a zoonotic infection that could spread if they basically refuse to cooperate with us or with public health authorities, it really could have negative consequences for the reputation of the field.”

Dr. Mohiuddin agreed such concerns are valid. Mr. Bennett “and all his immediate contacts” signed consent forms acknowledging their willingness to be followed should he be discharged. Mr. Bennett himself “signed a consent to inform us if he has any other intimate contact with someone,” he said in an interview.

“But those are only on paper.” Had Mr. Bennett survived to be discharged, Dr. Mohuiddin said, “no one knows how he would have behaved.”

Dr. Mohiuddin said the research staff had prepared to monitor Mr. Bennett at his home if that’s what it took. “We were ready to follow him as long as we could. There was a surveillance plan in place.”

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

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

The combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy led to significant improvements in survival for patients with resectable stage IIIA-B non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to researchers reporting earlier this month in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Advanced stage IIIA NSCLC is incurable in most patients with lung cancer, and with existing treatments only 30% of patients will live up to 5 years. In this study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy with nivolumab significantly increased the pathological complete response rate in 36.2% of patients, compared with 6.8% who received chemo alone, said study author Mariano Provencio-Pulla, MD, PhD, Instituto Investigacion Sanitaria Puerta de Hierro-Segovia de Arana, Spain. The major pathologic response (MPR) – which accounts for residual viable tumor of less than or equal to 10 – was better in the treatment group as compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone (52% vs 14%). The objective response rate (ORR) – or, the percentage of patients who had a partial or complete response to treatment – was 74% in the treatment group, compared with 48% among patients who received chemotherapy.

“In our opinion this should be the standard of care for patients,” Dr. Provencio-Pulla said during his presentation.

The ASCO treatment guidelines for stage III NSCLC, specify that some patients can receive immunotherapy for up to a year, but for resectable stage III disease, this therapy is still under investigation.

In this study, called NADIM II (NCT03838159), investigators enrolled 87 patients with resectable clinical stage IIIA disease between February 2019 and November 2021. NADIM II is an open-label, randomized, two-arm, phase 2, multicenter clinical trial. Patients had ECOG scores of 0-1 and no known EGFR/ALK alterations. Patients received either nivolumab 360 mg with paclitaxel 200 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC5 for three cycles every 21 days as treatment before or after surgery. Patients who received a resection that left no microscopic tumor in the primary tumor bed, received adjuvant nivolumab between weeks 3 and 8 after surgery for 6 months.

At 91%, almost all patients who received the immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatment underwent surgery, compared with 69% of patients in the chemotherapy treatment group. In the treatment group, patients with pathological complete response (pCR) had higher PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) scores (median 70%).

The primary endpoint was pathological complete response of 0% viable tumor cells in resected lung and lymph nodes. The major pathological response was no more than 10% viable tumor remaining. The secondary endpoints included overall response rate, toxicity profile, and potential predictive biomarkers.

The addition of neoadjuvant nivolumab to chemotherapy significantly improved pCR (odds ratio, 7.88). The safety profile was “tolerable” with a moderate increase in grade 3-4 toxicity; plus no surgery was delayed because of problems with the treatment, Dr. Provencio-Pulla said.

This study was funded by Fundación GECP. Dr. Provencio-Pulla has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the maker of Opdivo (nivolumab).

For many years, COPD has remained one of the top four leading causes of death in the United States according to CDC data. Around the world, it is responsible for about 3 million deaths annually. It is estimated that 16 million Americans are now diagnosed with COPD. However, it is commonly agreed by experts that it is widely underdiagnosed and there may be millions more suffering from this disease.

The direct costs of COPD are around $49 billion a year in direct costs, with billions more in indirect costs. Around the globe, COPD is one of the top three causes of death, with 90% of deaths happening in low- and middle-income countries. The burden of COPD is expected to grow over time because of the aging population and continued exposure to COPD risk factors.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease report (or GOLD) is revised every year, translated into many languages, and used by health care workers globally. It was started in 1998, and its aim was to produce guidelines based on the best scientific evidence available that was nonbiased to be used for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with COPD. The first report was issued in 2001. The method of producing the GOLD report was to do a search of PubMed for evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies. Those not captured by this method could be submitted for review. The science committee then meets twice a year and reviews each publication, eventually agreeing on a set of guidelines/updates.
 

2022 GOLD Report

For the 2022 GOLD report, 160 new references were added. Overall, the GOLD report is five chapters (more than 150 pages) giving in-depth guidance for the diagnosis, prevention, management, and treatment of patients with stable COPD, COPD exacerbations, and hospitalized patients.

The report suggests that COPD is being underdiagnosed. It’s important for primary care doctors to understand the new guidelines, because they are the clinicians who are most likely to be diagnosing and treating patients with COPD.

Family physicians and internists will be seeing more and more cases as the population ages, and we need to do a better job of recognizing patients who have COPD. If possible, we should try to have spirometry available in our practices. Like any other disease, we know prevention works best so primary care physicians also need to be looking for risk factors, such as smoking history, and help patients try to reduce them if possible. Below is more explanation of the latest guidelines.

For most of us, when we learned about COPD as a disease, the terms “chronic bronchitis” and “emphysema” were emphasized. These words are no longer used as synonymous for COPD.

The disease is now described as involving chronic limitation in airflow that results from a combination of small airway disease and parenchymal destruction (emphysema). The rates of each vary from person to person and progress at different rates. Key factors that contribute to COPD disease burden include chronic inflammation, narrowing of small airways, loss of alveolar attachments, loss of elastic recoil, and mucociliary dysfunction, according to the 2022 GOLD report.

Respiratory symptoms may precede the onset of airflow limitation. COPD should be considered in any patient with dyspnea, chronic cough or sputum production, a history of recurrent lower respiratory tract infections, and risk factors for the disease.

The biggest risk factor for COPD is smoking. Other risk factors include occupational exposure, e-cigarette use, pollution, genetic factors, and comorbid conditions. Symptoms of the disease can include chest tightness, wheezing, and fatigue.

To make a diagnosis of COPD, spirometry is required, the latest GOLD report says. A postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC less than 0.70 confirms persistent airflow limitation and hence COPD. This value is used in clinical trials and forms the basis of what most treatment guidelines are derived from. It would be beneficial for any physician treating COPD patients to have easy access to spirometry. It provides the most reproducible and objective measurement of airflow limitation. Also, it was found that assessing the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation to decide therapeutic decisions is no longer recommended and thus, asking the patient to stop inhaled medications beforehand is unnecessary. To access the impact COPD has on a patient’s life beyond dyspnea, the guidelines recommend doing a disease-specific health questionnaire, such as the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

Along with patient symptoms and history of exacerbations, spirometry is crucial for the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic decisions in COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidance. The best predictor of frequent exacerbations, however, is a history of previous exacerbations. In cases where there is a discrepancy between airflow limitation and symptoms, additional testing should be considered. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) screening should be considered in younger patients (under 45 years) with perilobular emphysema, and those in areas of high AATD prevalence. Chest x-rays are not recommended in diagnosing COPD but can be helpful if other comorbidities are present. CT scan is not routinely recommended but should be used only for the detection of bronchiectasis, if the patient meets the criteria for lung cancer screening, if surgery is necessary, or if other diseases may need to be evaluated.

Pulse oximetry can be helpful in accessing degree of severity, respiratory failure, and right heart failure. Walking tests can be helpful for evaluating disability and mortality risk. Other tests that have been used but are not routinely recommended include plethysmography and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

Composite scores can identify patients who are at increased risk of mortality. One such score is the BODE (Body mass, Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise) method. Biomarkers are being investigated, but data are still not available to recommend their routine use.
 

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].

For many years, COPD has remained one of the top four leading causes of death in the United States according to CDC data. Around the world, it is responsible for about 3 million deaths annually. It is estimated that 16 million Americans are now diagnosed with COPD. However, it is commonly agreed by experts that it is widely underdiagnosed and there may be millions more suffering from this disease.

The direct costs of COPD are around $49 billion a year in direct costs, with billions more in indirect costs. Around the globe, COPD is one of the top three causes of death, with 90% of deaths happening in low- and middle-income countries. The burden of COPD is expected to grow over time because of the aging population and continued exposure to COPD risk factors.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease report (or GOLD) is revised every year, translated into many languages, and used by health care workers globally. It was started in 1998, and its aim was to produce guidelines based on the best scientific evidence available that was nonbiased to be used for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with COPD. The first report was issued in 2001. The method of producing the GOLD report was to do a search of PubMed for evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies. Those not captured by this method could be submitted for review. The science committee then meets twice a year and reviews each publication, eventually agreeing on a set of guidelines/updates.
 

2022 GOLD Report

For the 2022 GOLD report, 160 new references were added. Overall, the GOLD report is five chapters (more than 150 pages) giving in-depth guidance for the diagnosis, prevention, management, and treatment of patients with stable COPD, COPD exacerbations, and hospitalized patients.

The report suggests that COPD is being underdiagnosed. It’s important for primary care doctors to understand the new guidelines, because they are the clinicians who are most likely to be diagnosing and treating patients with COPD.

Family physicians and internists will be seeing more and more cases as the population ages, and we need to do a better job of recognizing patients who have COPD. If possible, we should try to have spirometry available in our practices. Like any other disease, we know prevention works best so primary care physicians also need to be looking for risk factors, such as smoking history, and help patients try to reduce them if possible. Below is more explanation of the latest guidelines.

For most of us, when we learned about COPD as a disease, the terms “chronic bronchitis” and “emphysema” were emphasized. These words are no longer used as synonymous for COPD.

The disease is now described as involving chronic limitation in airflow that results from a combination of small airway disease and parenchymal destruction (emphysema). The rates of each vary from person to person and progress at different rates. Key factors that contribute to COPD disease burden include chronic inflammation, narrowing of small airways, loss of alveolar attachments, loss of elastic recoil, and mucociliary dysfunction, according to the 2022 GOLD report.

Respiratory symptoms may precede the onset of airflow limitation. COPD should be considered in any patient with dyspnea, chronic cough or sputum production, a history of recurrent lower respiratory tract infections, and risk factors for the disease.

The biggest risk factor for COPD is smoking. Other risk factors include occupational exposure, e-cigarette use, pollution, genetic factors, and comorbid conditions. Symptoms of the disease can include chest tightness, wheezing, and fatigue.

To make a diagnosis of COPD, spirometry is required, the latest GOLD report says. A postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC less than 0.70 confirms persistent airflow limitation and hence COPD. This value is used in clinical trials and forms the basis of what most treatment guidelines are derived from. It would be beneficial for any physician treating COPD patients to have easy access to spirometry. It provides the most reproducible and objective measurement of airflow limitation. Also, it was found that assessing the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation to decide therapeutic decisions is no longer recommended and thus, asking the patient to stop inhaled medications beforehand is unnecessary. To access the impact COPD has on a patient’s life beyond dyspnea, the guidelines recommend doing a disease-specific health questionnaire, such as the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

Along with patient symptoms and history of exacerbations, spirometry is crucial for the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic decisions in COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidance. The best predictor of frequent exacerbations, however, is a history of previous exacerbations. In cases where there is a discrepancy between airflow limitation and symptoms, additional testing should be considered. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) screening should be considered in younger patients (under 45 years) with perilobular emphysema, and those in areas of high AATD prevalence. Chest x-rays are not recommended in diagnosing COPD but can be helpful if other comorbidities are present. CT scan is not routinely recommended but should be used only for the detection of bronchiectasis, if the patient meets the criteria for lung cancer screening, if surgery is necessary, or if other diseases may need to be evaluated.

Pulse oximetry can be helpful in accessing degree of severity, respiratory failure, and right heart failure. Walking tests can be helpful for evaluating disability and mortality risk. Other tests that have been used but are not routinely recommended include plethysmography and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

Composite scores can identify patients who are at increased risk of mortality. One such score is the BODE (Body mass, Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise) method. Biomarkers are being investigated, but data are still not available to recommend their routine use.
 

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].

For many years, COPD has remained one of the top four leading causes of death in the United States according to CDC data. Around the world, it is responsible for about 3 million deaths annually. It is estimated that 16 million Americans are now diagnosed with COPD. However, it is commonly agreed by experts that it is widely underdiagnosed and there may be millions more suffering from this disease.

The direct costs of COPD are around $49 billion a year in direct costs, with billions more in indirect costs. Around the globe, COPD is one of the top three causes of death, with 90% of deaths happening in low- and middle-income countries. The burden of COPD is expected to grow over time because of the aging population and continued exposure to COPD risk factors.

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease report (or GOLD) is revised every year, translated into many languages, and used by health care workers globally. It was started in 1998, and its aim was to produce guidelines based on the best scientific evidence available that was nonbiased to be used for assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with COPD. The first report was issued in 2001. The method of producing the GOLD report was to do a search of PubMed for evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies. Those not captured by this method could be submitted for review. The science committee then meets twice a year and reviews each publication, eventually agreeing on a set of guidelines/updates.
 

2022 GOLD Report

For the 2022 GOLD report, 160 new references were added. Overall, the GOLD report is five chapters (more than 150 pages) giving in-depth guidance for the diagnosis, prevention, management, and treatment of patients with stable COPD, COPD exacerbations, and hospitalized patients.

The report suggests that COPD is being underdiagnosed. It’s important for primary care doctors to understand the new guidelines, because they are the clinicians who are most likely to be diagnosing and treating patients with COPD.

Family physicians and internists will be seeing more and more cases as the population ages, and we need to do a better job of recognizing patients who have COPD. If possible, we should try to have spirometry available in our practices. Like any other disease, we know prevention works best so primary care physicians also need to be looking for risk factors, such as smoking history, and help patients try to reduce them if possible. Below is more explanation of the latest guidelines.

For most of us, when we learned about COPD as a disease, the terms “chronic bronchitis” and “emphysema” were emphasized. These words are no longer used as synonymous for COPD.

The disease is now described as involving chronic limitation in airflow that results from a combination of small airway disease and parenchymal destruction (emphysema). The rates of each vary from person to person and progress at different rates. Key factors that contribute to COPD disease burden include chronic inflammation, narrowing of small airways, loss of alveolar attachments, loss of elastic recoil, and mucociliary dysfunction, according to the 2022 GOLD report.

Respiratory symptoms may precede the onset of airflow limitation. COPD should be considered in any patient with dyspnea, chronic cough or sputum production, a history of recurrent lower respiratory tract infections, and risk factors for the disease.

The biggest risk factor for COPD is smoking. Other risk factors include occupational exposure, e-cigarette use, pollution, genetic factors, and comorbid conditions. Symptoms of the disease can include chest tightness, wheezing, and fatigue.

To make a diagnosis of COPD, spirometry is required, the latest GOLD report says. A postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC less than 0.70 confirms persistent airflow limitation and hence COPD. This value is used in clinical trials and forms the basis of what most treatment guidelines are derived from. It would be beneficial for any physician treating COPD patients to have easy access to spirometry. It provides the most reproducible and objective measurement of airflow limitation. Also, it was found that assessing the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation to decide therapeutic decisions is no longer recommended and thus, asking the patient to stop inhaled medications beforehand is unnecessary. To access the impact COPD has on a patient’s life beyond dyspnea, the guidelines recommend doing a disease-specific health questionnaire, such as the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

Along with patient symptoms and history of exacerbations, spirometry is crucial for the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic decisions in COPD patients, according to the GOLD guidance. The best predictor of frequent exacerbations, however, is a history of previous exacerbations. In cases where there is a discrepancy between airflow limitation and symptoms, additional testing should be considered. Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) screening should be considered in younger patients (under 45 years) with perilobular emphysema, and those in areas of high AATD prevalence. Chest x-rays are not recommended in diagnosing COPD but can be helpful if other comorbidities are present. CT scan is not routinely recommended but should be used only for the detection of bronchiectasis, if the patient meets the criteria for lung cancer screening, if surgery is necessary, or if other diseases may need to be evaluated.

Pulse oximetry can be helpful in accessing degree of severity, respiratory failure, and right heart failure. Walking tests can be helpful for evaluating disability and mortality risk. Other tests that have been used but are not routinely recommended include plethysmography and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide.

Composite scores can identify patients who are at increased risk of mortality. One such score is the BODE (Body mass, Obstruction, Dyspnea, and Exercise) method. Biomarkers are being investigated, but data are still not available to recommend their routine use.
 

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].