CHEST Physician

The principal idea behind this article is to summarize comprehensively yet concisely the 2022 CMS updates regarding the critical care services. I would encourage and urge all the members to read this section attentively to stay abreast with all the recent developments.

As a general reminder the two critical care services billing codes for the evaluation and management of the critically ill injured patients are:

99291: First 30-74 minutes

99292: Each additional 30 minutes

And, the five major changes for 2022 as proposed by the CMS for critical care services are:

1. It is allowed for the physicians and APPs in the same specialty to bill concurrent critical care services.

Previously, same specialty practitioners were required to bill and were paid as “one” when multiple practitioners provided services on the same date. Now, they can bill for critical care services as subsequent care or as aggregate time, and they are highlighted below with examples:

Subsequent care

Initial visit by a provider for 65 minutes (bill as 99291 as the first claim)

Subsequent visit at a later time on the same day for 60 minutes (bill as 99292 x2 as the second claim)

Aggregate time

Time of multiple practitioners in the same specialty can be added to meet 99291 or 99292. If Practitioner A spends 15 minutes of critical care, then 99291 cannot be billed; but, if Practitioner B spends 30 minutes of critical care, they can bill 99291 with a total time of 45 minutes as one claim

The prerequisites are that the visits are medically necessary, and each visit meets the definition of critical care.

2. Modifier FS needs to be used for split sharing of critical care services.

Previously, critical care services could not be split shared, but it can be done in 2022. The practitioner who provides the significant portion of the visit needs to bill. A significant or substantive portion is considered to be more than half the cumulative total time of both providers.

Example: The APP spends 20 minutes in critical care services and the physician spends 30 minutes. Total time spent is 50 minutes, and the physician may bill 99291.

It is crucial to note that each provider needs to document a note for the medically necessary critical care that they personally performed and the time they spent. Additionally, upon review of the medical records, the two providers should be easily identifiable, and the medical record must be signed and dated by the provider who performed the substantive portion and billed.

Lastly, do not forget to submit the modifier FS.

3. Modifier 25 needs to be used to get paid for an ED visit or other E/M service on the same day as critical care.

Previously, hospital ED services were not paid on the same date as critical care by the same provider. But, in 2022, the practitioners may bill for ED visit at the hospital and also for other E/M services on the same day when there is supporting documentation. The practitioners will need to document that the E/M service was provided prior to the time when the patient did not require critical care, that the service was medically necessary, and that the service was separate and distinct with no duplication.

Of note, do not forget to submit the modifier 25.

4. Critical care visits will be separately billable from global surgery when unrelated with the use of modifier FT.

Previously pre- and postoperative critical care was included in the surgical package of many procedures with a global period of 10-90 days, and critical care visits would be paid only if the service was unrelated to the procedure. The concept remains the same in 2022 but, now, new modifier FT will need to be used to report critical care services unrelated to the procedure. Also, the service provided will need to meet the definition of critical care, which is usually above and beyond the procedure performed and should be unrelated to the specific injury or general surgical procedure performed.

5. There will be certain critical care medical record documentation requirements.

It is paramount that each practitioner must document the exact total critical care time and not a range or approximation of time. Additionally, it is equally as important for the documentation to indicate that the services provided were medically reasonable and necessary. In the setting of split/shared billing, the role of each practitioner should be clearly identifiable (the condition for which each practitioner treated the patient, how the care was concurrent either subsequent or aggregate, and the total time of each practitioner).

Hopefully, this review will provide a good perception for our members in regards to major updates for 2022, help them navigate the regulatory rules, and avoid any unnecessary setbacks. In the upcoming months, we will try to cover some more topics on practice management and administration, such as Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Rule, Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Rule, and coding/billing for teaching physicians, telehealth, and pulmonary rehabilitation services.

The principal idea behind this article is to summarize comprehensively yet concisely the 2022 CMS updates regarding the critical care services. I would encourage and urge all the members to read this section attentively to stay abreast with all the recent developments.

As a general reminder the two critical care services billing codes for the evaluation and management of the critically ill injured patients are:

99291: First 30-74 minutes

99292: Each additional 30 minutes

And, the five major changes for 2022 as proposed by the CMS for critical care services are:

1. It is allowed for the physicians and APPs in the same specialty to bill concurrent critical care services.

Previously, same specialty practitioners were required to bill and were paid as “one” when multiple practitioners provided services on the same date. Now, they can bill for critical care services as subsequent care or as aggregate time, and they are highlighted below with examples:

Subsequent care

Initial visit by a provider for 65 minutes (bill as 99291 as the first claim)

Subsequent visit at a later time on the same day for 60 minutes (bill as 99292 x2 as the second claim)

Aggregate time

Time of multiple practitioners in the same specialty can be added to meet 99291 or 99292. If Practitioner A spends 15 minutes of critical care, then 99291 cannot be billed; but, if Practitioner B spends 30 minutes of critical care, they can bill 99291 with a total time of 45 minutes as one claim

The prerequisites are that the visits are medically necessary, and each visit meets the definition of critical care.

2. Modifier FS needs to be used for split sharing of critical care services.

Previously, critical care services could not be split shared, but it can be done in 2022. The practitioner who provides the significant portion of the visit needs to bill. A significant or substantive portion is considered to be more than half the cumulative total time of both providers.

Example: The APP spends 20 minutes in critical care services and the physician spends 30 minutes. Total time spent is 50 minutes, and the physician may bill 99291.

It is crucial to note that each provider needs to document a note for the medically necessary critical care that they personally performed and the time they spent. Additionally, upon review of the medical records, the two providers should be easily identifiable, and the medical record must be signed and dated by the provider who performed the substantive portion and billed.

Lastly, do not forget to submit the modifier FS.

3. Modifier 25 needs to be used to get paid for an ED visit or other E/M service on the same day as critical care.

Previously, hospital ED services were not paid on the same date as critical care by the same provider. But, in 2022, the practitioners may bill for ED visit at the hospital and also for other E/M services on the same day when there is supporting documentation. The practitioners will need to document that the E/M service was provided prior to the time when the patient did not require critical care, that the service was medically necessary, and that the service was separate and distinct with no duplication.

Of note, do not forget to submit the modifier 25.

4. Critical care visits will be separately billable from global surgery when unrelated with the use of modifier FT.

Previously pre- and postoperative critical care was included in the surgical package of many procedures with a global period of 10-90 days, and critical care visits would be paid only if the service was unrelated to the procedure. The concept remains the same in 2022 but, now, new modifier FT will need to be used to report critical care services unrelated to the procedure. Also, the service provided will need to meet the definition of critical care, which is usually above and beyond the procedure performed and should be unrelated to the specific injury or general surgical procedure performed.

5. There will be certain critical care medical record documentation requirements.

It is paramount that each practitioner must document the exact total critical care time and not a range or approximation of time. Additionally, it is equally as important for the documentation to indicate that the services provided were medically reasonable and necessary. In the setting of split/shared billing, the role of each practitioner should be clearly identifiable (the condition for which each practitioner treated the patient, how the care was concurrent either subsequent or aggregate, and the total time of each practitioner).

Hopefully, this review will provide a good perception for our members in regards to major updates for 2022, help them navigate the regulatory rules, and avoid any unnecessary setbacks. In the upcoming months, we will try to cover some more topics on practice management and administration, such as Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Rule, Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Rule, and coding/billing for teaching physicians, telehealth, and pulmonary rehabilitation services.

The principal idea behind this article is to summarize comprehensively yet concisely the 2022 CMS updates regarding the critical care services. I would encourage and urge all the members to read this section attentively to stay abreast with all the recent developments.

As a general reminder the two critical care services billing codes for the evaluation and management of the critically ill injured patients are:

99291: First 30-74 minutes

99292: Each additional 30 minutes

And, the five major changes for 2022 as proposed by the CMS for critical care services are:

1. It is allowed for the physicians and APPs in the same specialty to bill concurrent critical care services.

Previously, same specialty practitioners were required to bill and were paid as “one” when multiple practitioners provided services on the same date. Now, they can bill for critical care services as subsequent care or as aggregate time, and they are highlighted below with examples:

Subsequent care

Initial visit by a provider for 65 minutes (bill as 99291 as the first claim)

Subsequent visit at a later time on the same day for 60 minutes (bill as 99292 x2 as the second claim)

Aggregate time

Time of multiple practitioners in the same specialty can be added to meet 99291 or 99292. If Practitioner A spends 15 minutes of critical care, then 99291 cannot be billed; but, if Practitioner B spends 30 minutes of critical care, they can bill 99291 with a total time of 45 minutes as one claim

The prerequisites are that the visits are medically necessary, and each visit meets the definition of critical care.

2. Modifier FS needs to be used for split sharing of critical care services.

Previously, critical care services could not be split shared, but it can be done in 2022. The practitioner who provides the significant portion of the visit needs to bill. A significant or substantive portion is considered to be more than half the cumulative total time of both providers.

Example: The APP spends 20 minutes in critical care services and the physician spends 30 minutes. Total time spent is 50 minutes, and the physician may bill 99291.

It is crucial to note that each provider needs to document a note for the medically necessary critical care that they personally performed and the time they spent. Additionally, upon review of the medical records, the two providers should be easily identifiable, and the medical record must be signed and dated by the provider who performed the substantive portion and billed.

Lastly, do not forget to submit the modifier FS.

3. Modifier 25 needs to be used to get paid for an ED visit or other E/M service on the same day as critical care.

Previously, hospital ED services were not paid on the same date as critical care by the same provider. But, in 2022, the practitioners may bill for ED visit at the hospital and also for other E/M services on the same day when there is supporting documentation. The practitioners will need to document that the E/M service was provided prior to the time when the patient did not require critical care, that the service was medically necessary, and that the service was separate and distinct with no duplication.

Of note, do not forget to submit the modifier 25.

4. Critical care visits will be separately billable from global surgery when unrelated with the use of modifier FT.

Previously pre- and postoperative critical care was included in the surgical package of many procedures with a global period of 10-90 days, and critical care visits would be paid only if the service was unrelated to the procedure. The concept remains the same in 2022 but, now, new modifier FT will need to be used to report critical care services unrelated to the procedure. Also, the service provided will need to meet the definition of critical care, which is usually above and beyond the procedure performed and should be unrelated to the specific injury or general surgical procedure performed.

5. There will be certain critical care medical record documentation requirements.

It is paramount that each practitioner must document the exact total critical care time and not a range or approximation of time. Additionally, it is equally as important for the documentation to indicate that the services provided were medically reasonable and necessary. In the setting of split/shared billing, the role of each practitioner should be clearly identifiable (the condition for which each practitioner treated the patient, how the care was concurrent either subsequent or aggregate, and the total time of each practitioner).

Hopefully, this review will provide a good perception for our members in regards to major updates for 2022, help them navigate the regulatory rules, and avoid any unnecessary setbacks. In the upcoming months, we will try to cover some more topics on practice management and administration, such as Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Rule, Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Rule, and coding/billing for teaching physicians, telehealth, and pulmonary rehabilitation services.

I recall early in the pandemic being called to the bedside to examine an acutely decompensating patient with COVID-19. This was a 33-year-old, previously healthy woman, admitted to the medical ICU with hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and undergoing treatment for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). I quickly realized she was seconds away from an arrest. As I examined her, one thing caught my eye. Her airway pressures had skyrocketed over the past few minutes. Could it be? I thought to myself as I reached for the ultrasound that confirmed my suspicions, tension pneumothorax. One emergent needle decompression and chest tube later and she survives, only to die a week later from overwhelming hypoxemia.

As we reflect on these past 26 months, we recall that caring for the critically ill patient with COVID-19 has posed numerous challenges. One challenge was the overwhelming incidence of the so-called “barotrauma-related complications.” However, we also recall seeing many patients develop such complications while receiving supplemental noninvasive forms of respiratory support. Perhaps, this is in agreement with prior literature that specifically discusses the presence of air outside the tracheobronchial tree and how it does not always correlate with high airway pressure and high tidal volumes, refuting the argument that these complications always fall under the umbrella of barotrauma. We will discuss these complications and attempt to shed light on the potential variables associated with their development.

Courtesy ACCP

The development of pneumothorax is a well-recognized complication associated with ventilator-dependent ARDS thought to be a form of barotrauma, with some reports indicating an incidence of 48.8% (Gattinoni L et al. JAMA. 1994;271[2]):1772-9) and a significantly increased mortality rate compared with postprocedural pneumothorax in the ICU (Chen K et al. Chest. 2002;122[2]:678-83). The incidence of such complication in COVID-19-related ARDS is significantly higher than in ARDS from other causes (Belletti A et al. Crit Care Med. 2022;50[3]:491-500), with a mortality rate approaching 100% (Chong WH et al. Heart Lung. 2021;50[5]:599-608).

So why are patients with COVID-19 developing these complications at a higher rate? When we examine the literature, we note that Leisman and colleagues (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[5]:507-19) describe higher baseline markers of alveolar damage, including RAGE (receptor for advanced glycation end-products) in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 vs patients requiring mechanical ventilation for other causes. This poses a question that perhaps one of the main reasons patients with COVID-19 ARDS are at an increased risk for developing certain complications, such as pneumothorax, is inherent to the unique type of alveolar injury sustained with the infection. The authors also note that alveolar markers of injury had moderate to poor discrimination for invasive ventilation early in the disease and diminished over time in both ventilated patients receiving lung protective ventilation strategy and those spontaneously breathing. Likewise, this important finding suggests that the development of pneumothorax in patients with COVID-19 may not be entirely related to barotrauma.

Another phenomenon worth investigating is the development of pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema, with a reported seven-fold increased risk of development in patients with COVID-19. Lemmers and colleagues (ERJ Open Res. 2020;6[4]:00385-2020) found no statistically significant difference in PEEP, plateau pressure, ratio of tidal volume to ideal body weight, or compliance between patients who developed this complication and those who did not, again, signifying that perhaps there is more to the story here.

Belletti and colleagues (J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021;35[12]:3642-51) published an article examining the predictors of pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in patients with COVID-19. The authors found that the time from symptom onset to intubation and the total bilirubin level were the only two significant predictors for the development of these complications. They explain that longer time from symptom onset to intubation likely increased the risk for self-induced lung injury, inflammation, and fibrosis, contributing to the development of such complications. It is important to note that the authors did not find a significant difference in the ventilation parameters between patients who developed pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and those who did not.

In our institute, we examined a total of 102 patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 ARDS over a 3-month period from March 2020 to May 2020. We identified a total of 36 patients who developed pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and/or subcutaneous emphysema. We compared these subjects to age- and gender-matched control subjects. Higher age was associated with an increased risk of development of these complications, whereas the presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease at baseline was associated with lower risk. This translated into lower mSOFA scores in our subjects as opposed to the control subjects mainly due to higher creatinine levels at baseline in the control group, skewing our data and indicating that some predictive criteria may not reflect the underlying disease severity and risk for development of such complications. In analyzing our ventilator data and comparing the subjects to the control group, we found no differences in mode of ventilation, set tidal volumes, or PEEP levels between the two. The subjects had significantly higher peak airway pressures, lower compliance, and longer ventilator days. Intubation was needed significantly earlier in the subjects compared with the control group with a median of 2 days vs 6 days from admission. Our data are in concordance with prior published reports and are set to be presented in abstract form this May.

COVID-19 remains a challenging disease with the potential for morbid outcomes. As we phase out of the pandemic and move into an epidemic, future research direction will likely focus on some of the more unusually common complications, such as the ones presented here.

Dr. Abdullah is with the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.

I recall early in the pandemic being called to the bedside to examine an acutely decompensating patient with COVID-19. This was a 33-year-old, previously healthy woman, admitted to the medical ICU with hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and undergoing treatment for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). I quickly realized she was seconds away from an arrest. As I examined her, one thing caught my eye. Her airway pressures had skyrocketed over the past few minutes. Could it be? I thought to myself as I reached for the ultrasound that confirmed my suspicions, tension pneumothorax. One emergent needle decompression and chest tube later and she survives, only to die a week later from overwhelming hypoxemia.

As we reflect on these past 26 months, we recall that caring for the critically ill patient with COVID-19 has posed numerous challenges. One challenge was the overwhelming incidence of the so-called “barotrauma-related complications.” However, we also recall seeing many patients develop such complications while receiving supplemental noninvasive forms of respiratory support. Perhaps, this is in agreement with prior literature that specifically discusses the presence of air outside the tracheobronchial tree and how it does not always correlate with high airway pressure and high tidal volumes, refuting the argument that these complications always fall under the umbrella of barotrauma. We will discuss these complications and attempt to shed light on the potential variables associated with their development.

Courtesy ACCP

The development of pneumothorax is a well-recognized complication associated with ventilator-dependent ARDS thought to be a form of barotrauma, with some reports indicating an incidence of 48.8% (Gattinoni L et al. JAMA. 1994;271[2]):1772-9) and a significantly increased mortality rate compared with postprocedural pneumothorax in the ICU (Chen K et al. Chest. 2002;122[2]:678-83). The incidence of such complication in COVID-19-related ARDS is significantly higher than in ARDS from other causes (Belletti A et al. Crit Care Med. 2022;50[3]:491-500), with a mortality rate approaching 100% (Chong WH et al. Heart Lung. 2021;50[5]:599-608).

So why are patients with COVID-19 developing these complications at a higher rate? When we examine the literature, we note that Leisman and colleagues (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[5]:507-19) describe higher baseline markers of alveolar damage, including RAGE (receptor for advanced glycation end-products) in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 vs patients requiring mechanical ventilation for other causes. This poses a question that perhaps one of the main reasons patients with COVID-19 ARDS are at an increased risk for developing certain complications, such as pneumothorax, is inherent to the unique type of alveolar injury sustained with the infection. The authors also note that alveolar markers of injury had moderate to poor discrimination for invasive ventilation early in the disease and diminished over time in both ventilated patients receiving lung protective ventilation strategy and those spontaneously breathing. Likewise, this important finding suggests that the development of pneumothorax in patients with COVID-19 may not be entirely related to barotrauma.

Another phenomenon worth investigating is the development of pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema, with a reported seven-fold increased risk of development in patients with COVID-19. Lemmers and colleagues (ERJ Open Res. 2020;6[4]:00385-2020) found no statistically significant difference in PEEP, plateau pressure, ratio of tidal volume to ideal body weight, or compliance between patients who developed this complication and those who did not, again, signifying that perhaps there is more to the story here.

Belletti and colleagues (J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021;35[12]:3642-51) published an article examining the predictors of pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in patients with COVID-19. The authors found that the time from symptom onset to intubation and the total bilirubin level were the only two significant predictors for the development of these complications. They explain that longer time from symptom onset to intubation likely increased the risk for self-induced lung injury, inflammation, and fibrosis, contributing to the development of such complications. It is important to note that the authors did not find a significant difference in the ventilation parameters between patients who developed pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and those who did not.

In our institute, we examined a total of 102 patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 ARDS over a 3-month period from March 2020 to May 2020. We identified a total of 36 patients who developed pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and/or subcutaneous emphysema. We compared these subjects to age- and gender-matched control subjects. Higher age was associated with an increased risk of development of these complications, whereas the presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease at baseline was associated with lower risk. This translated into lower mSOFA scores in our subjects as opposed to the control subjects mainly due to higher creatinine levels at baseline in the control group, skewing our data and indicating that some predictive criteria may not reflect the underlying disease severity and risk for development of such complications. In analyzing our ventilator data and comparing the subjects to the control group, we found no differences in mode of ventilation, set tidal volumes, or PEEP levels between the two. The subjects had significantly higher peak airway pressures, lower compliance, and longer ventilator days. Intubation was needed significantly earlier in the subjects compared with the control group with a median of 2 days vs 6 days from admission. Our data are in concordance with prior published reports and are set to be presented in abstract form this May.

COVID-19 remains a challenging disease with the potential for morbid outcomes. As we phase out of the pandemic and move into an epidemic, future research direction will likely focus on some of the more unusually common complications, such as the ones presented here.

Dr. Abdullah is with the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.

I recall early in the pandemic being called to the bedside to examine an acutely decompensating patient with COVID-19. This was a 33-year-old, previously healthy woman, admitted to the medical ICU with hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and undergoing treatment for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). I quickly realized she was seconds away from an arrest. As I examined her, one thing caught my eye. Her airway pressures had skyrocketed over the past few minutes. Could it be? I thought to myself as I reached for the ultrasound that confirmed my suspicions, tension pneumothorax. One emergent needle decompression and chest tube later and she survives, only to die a week later from overwhelming hypoxemia.

As we reflect on these past 26 months, we recall that caring for the critically ill patient with COVID-19 has posed numerous challenges. One challenge was the overwhelming incidence of the so-called “barotrauma-related complications.” However, we also recall seeing many patients develop such complications while receiving supplemental noninvasive forms of respiratory support. Perhaps, this is in agreement with prior literature that specifically discusses the presence of air outside the tracheobronchial tree and how it does not always correlate with high airway pressure and high tidal volumes, refuting the argument that these complications always fall under the umbrella of barotrauma. We will discuss these complications and attempt to shed light on the potential variables associated with their development.

Courtesy ACCP

The development of pneumothorax is a well-recognized complication associated with ventilator-dependent ARDS thought to be a form of barotrauma, with some reports indicating an incidence of 48.8% (Gattinoni L et al. JAMA. 1994;271[2]):1772-9) and a significantly increased mortality rate compared with postprocedural pneumothorax in the ICU (Chen K et al. Chest. 2002;122[2]:678-83). The incidence of such complication in COVID-19-related ARDS is significantly higher than in ARDS from other causes (Belletti A et al. Crit Care Med. 2022;50[3]:491-500), with a mortality rate approaching 100% (Chong WH et al. Heart Lung. 2021;50[5]:599-608).

So why are patients with COVID-19 developing these complications at a higher rate? When we examine the literature, we note that Leisman and colleagues (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[5]:507-19) describe higher baseline markers of alveolar damage, including RAGE (receptor for advanced glycation end-products) in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 vs patients requiring mechanical ventilation for other causes. This poses a question that perhaps one of the main reasons patients with COVID-19 ARDS are at an increased risk for developing certain complications, such as pneumothorax, is inherent to the unique type of alveolar injury sustained with the infection. The authors also note that alveolar markers of injury had moderate to poor discrimination for invasive ventilation early in the disease and diminished over time in both ventilated patients receiving lung protective ventilation strategy and those spontaneously breathing. Likewise, this important finding suggests that the development of pneumothorax in patients with COVID-19 may not be entirely related to barotrauma.

Another phenomenon worth investigating is the development of pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema, with a reported seven-fold increased risk of development in patients with COVID-19. Lemmers and colleagues (ERJ Open Res. 2020;6[4]:00385-2020) found no statistically significant difference in PEEP, plateau pressure, ratio of tidal volume to ideal body weight, or compliance between patients who developed this complication and those who did not, again, signifying that perhaps there is more to the story here.

Belletti and colleagues (J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021;35[12]:3642-51) published an article examining the predictors of pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in patients with COVID-19. The authors found that the time from symptom onset to intubation and the total bilirubin level were the only two significant predictors for the development of these complications. They explain that longer time from symptom onset to intubation likely increased the risk for self-induced lung injury, inflammation, and fibrosis, contributing to the development of such complications. It is important to note that the authors did not find a significant difference in the ventilation parameters between patients who developed pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum and those who did not.

In our institute, we examined a total of 102 patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 ARDS over a 3-month period from March 2020 to May 2020. We identified a total of 36 patients who developed pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and/or subcutaneous emphysema. We compared these subjects to age- and gender-matched control subjects. Higher age was associated with an increased risk of development of these complications, whereas the presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease at baseline was associated with lower risk. This translated into lower mSOFA scores in our subjects as opposed to the control subjects mainly due to higher creatinine levels at baseline in the control group, skewing our data and indicating that some predictive criteria may not reflect the underlying disease severity and risk for development of such complications. In analyzing our ventilator data and comparing the subjects to the control group, we found no differences in mode of ventilation, set tidal volumes, or PEEP levels between the two. The subjects had significantly higher peak airway pressures, lower compliance, and longer ventilator days. Intubation was needed significantly earlier in the subjects compared with the control group with a median of 2 days vs 6 days from admission. Our data are in concordance with prior published reports and are set to be presented in abstract form this May.

COVID-19 remains a challenging disease with the potential for morbid outcomes. As we phase out of the pandemic and move into an epidemic, future research direction will likely focus on some of the more unusually common complications, such as the ones presented here.

Dr. Abdullah is with the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.

Our understanding of asthma endotypes and phenotypes has grown substantially in the last decade. Endotype-targeted therapy has become a foundation of management, and classification of patients during initial assessment is extremely important. The use of history, laboratory data, and pulmonary function testing together help to categorize our patients and help guide therapy. One lab test, that of sputum or blood eosinophils, facilitates categorization and has been evaluated for its ability to determine response to medications and predict exacerbations.

In particular, eosinophilia has been extensively studied in severe asthma and is associated with type 2 inflammation. The 2021 GINA guidelines describe type 2 inflammation as characterized by cytokines (especially IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13). “T2-high patients” tend to have elevated blood or sputum eosinophil counts and elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) and are more likely to respond to biologic therapy. (Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, 2021).

Courtesy ACCP

However, what about patients with more mild-to-moderate asthma? Two recent studies have asked this question. In 2020, Pavord and colleagues performed a prespecified secondary subgroup analysis on an open-label randomized control trial comparing prn salbutamol alone to budesonide and as needed salbutamol to as needed budesonide-formoterol. The population was 675 adults with mild asthma receiving only as needed short acting beta-agonists (SABA) at baseline. The primary outcome was annual rate of asthma exacerbation, and whether it was different based on blood eosinophil count, FENO or a composite of both. They had several interesting findings. First, for patients only on an as needed SABA, the proportion having a severe exacerbation increased progressively with increasing blood eosinophil count. Second, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus as needed SABA were more effective than SABA alone in patients with a blood eosinophil count of ≥300 cells/μL, both in terms of total exacerbations and severe exacerbations. The effects of budesonide-formoterol on exacerbations, however, was not associated with blood eosinophil count or FENO. This last point is particularly interesting in light of GINA guidelines that prioritize this combination (Pavord ID et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8[7]:671-80).

Courtesy ACCP

More recently, a prespecified secondary analysis of the SIENA trial looked at 295 subjects with mild persistent asthma (237 adults aged 18+, and 58 adolescents aged 12-17). The primary outcome was a composite of asthma control (treatment failure, asthma control days, and FEV₁). They found that sputum eosinophil levels, blood eosinophil levels, and FENO all predicted response to ICS in adults; however, the area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AUC) was less than 0.7 for each of these findings, which was below the threshold for acceptability. A blood eosinophil count of ≥100 cells/μL offered 87% sensitivity and 17% specificity for response to ICS (Krishnan JA et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022;19[3]:372-80).

What does this tell us? Blood eosinophil count may help determine who will respond to ICS, and there remains utility in assessing blood eosinophil count in severe asthma for determining candidacy for biologic therapies. However, the overall utility of blood eosinophils in mild to moderate asthma is not as clear.

But, are we asking the right questions? Many studies look at a single blood eosinophil level, either at a single point in time, a baseline level, or a highest level over a specific time period. But do eosinophil counts vary over time?

A 2018 single-center study initially asked this question. The authors evaluated blood eosinophil levels in 219 adult patients at the NYU/Bellevue Hospital Asthma Clinic over a 5-year period. They found that individual patients had variable eosinophil levels. For example, only 6% (n=13) of patients had levels consistently above 300 cells/μL, but nearly 50% (n=104) had at least one level above 300. The degree of variability was then assessed by K-mean clustering yielding three clusters. Cluster 2 had the largest variability in blood eosinophil counts and a slightly higher absolute eosinophil level. While not significant, there was a suggestion of worse asthma control with more hospitalizations and more prescriptions for multiple controllers in this cluster with more variability. Clearly, this warranted further study (Rakowski E et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 2019;49[2]:163-70).

Variability was re-examined more recently in 2021. A post hoc analysis of two phase III clinical trials from the reslizumab BREATH program looked at eosinophil counts in the 476 patients randomized to receive placebo during the 52-week study. These patients did have eosinophilic asthma by definition and had to have an elevated eosinophil count >400 cells/μL over the 4-week enrollment period to enter the study. However, 124 patients (26.1%) had an eosinophil level <400 cells/μL immediately before the first dose of placebo. The primary outcome was variability in blood eosinophil count. Of patients who started with serum eosinophils <400, 27% to 56% of patients shifted to the ≥400 cells/μL category during the treatment period (this wide range is across three categories of low “baseline” blood eosinophil count; <150, 150 to 300, and 300 to 400). On the contrary, patients who started with eosinophils ≥400 cells/μL tended to stay at that level. The variability is reduced by taking two to three repeat measurements at baseline (Corren et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9[3]:1224-31).

Does this variability have clinical significance? A recent retrospective cohort study looked at 10,059 stable adult patients with asthma from the MAJORICA cohort in Spain, compared with 8,557 control subjects. The primary outcome was total blood eosinophil count and an “eosinophil variability index” (EVI) where EVI=(Eosmax – Eosmin / Eosmax) x 100%. They found that an elevated EVI was associated with hospitalization, more so than maximum eosinophil count or any other eosinophil count variable, with an odds ratio of 3.18 by univariate regression (2.51 by multivariate). They also found that patients with an EVI ≥50% were twice as likely to be hospitalized or visit the ED than those with a lower EVI (Toledo-Pons N et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022;19[3]:407-14). These results are very interesting and merit further research.

So, what to do with this information? We know that patients with peripheral eosinophilia and severe asthma symptoms are candidates for biologic therapy. They are also more likely to respond to steroids, although the utility of this assessment alone in mild to moderate asthma is less clear. It does seem that more variability in eosinophils over time may be linked to more difficult-to-treat asthma.

Should you check eosinophils in your patients with asthma? GINA 2021 guidelines say to consider it, and list blood eosinophilia as a risk factor for future exacerbation, even if patients have few asthma symptoms. They also say to repeat blood eosinophils in patients with severe asthma, if the level is low at first assessment, based on the studies discussed above. We would agree. We also see the blood eosinophil count as one part of a clinical assessment of a patient’s overall asthma control – even if the patient has mild symptoms. More study on variability is welcome.

Dr. Haber and Dr. Jamieson are with Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.

Our understanding of asthma endotypes and phenotypes has grown substantially in the last decade. Endotype-targeted therapy has become a foundation of management, and classification of patients during initial assessment is extremely important. The use of history, laboratory data, and pulmonary function testing together help to categorize our patients and help guide therapy. One lab test, that of sputum or blood eosinophils, facilitates categorization and has been evaluated for its ability to determine response to medications and predict exacerbations.

In particular, eosinophilia has been extensively studied in severe asthma and is associated with type 2 inflammation. The 2021 GINA guidelines describe type 2 inflammation as characterized by cytokines (especially IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13). “T2-high patients” tend to have elevated blood or sputum eosinophil counts and elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) and are more likely to respond to biologic therapy. (Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, 2021).

Courtesy ACCP

However, what about patients with more mild-to-moderate asthma? Two recent studies have asked this question. In 2020, Pavord and colleagues performed a prespecified secondary subgroup analysis on an open-label randomized control trial comparing prn salbutamol alone to budesonide and as needed salbutamol to as needed budesonide-formoterol. The population was 675 adults with mild asthma receiving only as needed short acting beta-agonists (SABA) at baseline. The primary outcome was annual rate of asthma exacerbation, and whether it was different based on blood eosinophil count, FENO or a composite of both. They had several interesting findings. First, for patients only on an as needed SABA, the proportion having a severe exacerbation increased progressively with increasing blood eosinophil count. Second, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus as needed SABA were more effective than SABA alone in patients with a blood eosinophil count of ≥300 cells/μL, both in terms of total exacerbations and severe exacerbations. The effects of budesonide-formoterol on exacerbations, however, was not associated with blood eosinophil count or FENO. This last point is particularly interesting in light of GINA guidelines that prioritize this combination (Pavord ID et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8[7]:671-80).

Courtesy ACCP

More recently, a prespecified secondary analysis of the SIENA trial looked at 295 subjects with mild persistent asthma (237 adults aged 18+, and 58 adolescents aged 12-17). The primary outcome was a composite of asthma control (treatment failure, asthma control days, and FEV₁). They found that sputum eosinophil levels, blood eosinophil levels, and FENO all predicted response to ICS in adults; however, the area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AUC) was less than 0.7 for each of these findings, which was below the threshold for acceptability. A blood eosinophil count of ≥100 cells/μL offered 87% sensitivity and 17% specificity for response to ICS (Krishnan JA et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022;19[3]:372-80).

What does this tell us? Blood eosinophil count may help determine who will respond to ICS, and there remains utility in assessing blood eosinophil count in severe asthma for determining candidacy for biologic therapies. However, the overall utility of blood eosinophils in mild to moderate asthma is not as clear.

But, are we asking the right questions? Many studies look at a single blood eosinophil level, either at a single point in time, a baseline level, or a highest level over a specific time period. But do eosinophil counts vary over time?

A 2018 single-center study initially asked this question. The authors evaluated blood eosinophil levels in 219 adult patients at the NYU/Bellevue Hospital Asthma Clinic over a 5-year period. They found that individual patients had variable eosinophil levels. For example, only 6% (n=13) of patients had levels consistently above 300 cells/μL, but nearly 50% (n=104) had at least one level above 300. The degree of variability was then assessed by K-mean clustering yielding three clusters. Cluster 2 had the largest variability in blood eosinophil counts and a slightly higher absolute eosinophil level. While not significant, there was a suggestion of worse asthma control with more hospitalizations and more prescriptions for multiple controllers in this cluster with more variability. Clearly, this warranted further study (Rakowski E et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 2019;49[2]:163-70).

Variability was re-examined more recently in 2021. A post hoc analysis of two phase III clinical trials from the reslizumab BREATH program looked at eosinophil counts in the 476 patients randomized to receive placebo during the 52-week study. These patients did have eosinophilic asthma by definition and had to have an elevated eosinophil count >400 cells/μL over the 4-week enrollment period to enter the study. However, 124 patients (26.1%) had an eosinophil level <400 cells/μL immediately before the first dose of placebo. The primary outcome was variability in blood eosinophil count. Of patients who started with serum eosinophils <400, 27% to 56% of patients shifted to the ≥400 cells/μL category during the treatment period (this wide range is across three categories of low “baseline” blood eosinophil count; <150, 150 to 300, and 300 to 400). On the contrary, patients who started with eosinophils ≥400 cells/μL tended to stay at that level. The variability is reduced by taking two to three repeat measurements at baseline (Corren et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9[3]:1224-31).

Does this variability have clinical significance? A recent retrospective cohort study looked at 10,059 stable adult patients with asthma from the MAJORICA cohort in Spain, compared with 8,557 control subjects. The primary outcome was total blood eosinophil count and an “eosinophil variability index” (EVI) where EVI=(Eosmax – Eosmin / Eosmax) x 100%. They found that an elevated EVI was associated with hospitalization, more so than maximum eosinophil count or any other eosinophil count variable, with an odds ratio of 3.18 by univariate regression (2.51 by multivariate). They also found that patients with an EVI ≥50% were twice as likely to be hospitalized or visit the ED than those with a lower EVI (Toledo-Pons N et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022;19[3]:407-14). These results are very interesting and merit further research.

So, what to do with this information? We know that patients with peripheral eosinophilia and severe asthma symptoms are candidates for biologic therapy. They are also more likely to respond to steroids, although the utility of this assessment alone in mild to moderate asthma is less clear. It does seem that more variability in eosinophils over time may be linked to more difficult-to-treat asthma.

Should you check eosinophils in your patients with asthma? GINA 2021 guidelines say to consider it, and list blood eosinophilia as a risk factor for future exacerbation, even if patients have few asthma symptoms. They also say to repeat blood eosinophils in patients with severe asthma, if the level is low at first assessment, based on the studies discussed above. We would agree. We also see the blood eosinophil count as one part of a clinical assessment of a patient’s overall asthma control – even if the patient has mild symptoms. More study on variability is welcome.

Dr. Haber and Dr. Jamieson are with Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.

Our understanding of asthma endotypes and phenotypes has grown substantially in the last decade. Endotype-targeted therapy has become a foundation of management, and classification of patients during initial assessment is extremely important. The use of history, laboratory data, and pulmonary function testing together help to categorize our patients and help guide therapy. One lab test, that of sputum or blood eosinophils, facilitates categorization and has been evaluated for its ability to determine response to medications and predict exacerbations.

In particular, eosinophilia has been extensively studied in severe asthma and is associated with type 2 inflammation. The 2021 GINA guidelines describe type 2 inflammation as characterized by cytokines (especially IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13). “T2-high patients” tend to have elevated blood or sputum eosinophil counts and elevated fractional concentration of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) and are more likely to respond to biologic therapy. (Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, 2021).

Courtesy ACCP

However, what about patients with more mild-to-moderate asthma? Two recent studies have asked this question. In 2020, Pavord and colleagues performed a prespecified secondary subgroup analysis on an open-label randomized control trial comparing prn salbutamol alone to budesonide and as needed salbutamol to as needed budesonide-formoterol. The population was 675 adults with mild asthma receiving only as needed short acting beta-agonists (SABA) at baseline. The primary outcome was annual rate of asthma exacerbation, and whether it was different based on blood eosinophil count, FENO or a composite of both. They had several interesting findings. First, for patients only on an as needed SABA, the proportion having a severe exacerbation increased progressively with increasing blood eosinophil count. Second, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus as needed SABA were more effective than SABA alone in patients with a blood eosinophil count of ≥300 cells/μL, both in terms of total exacerbations and severe exacerbations. The effects of budesonide-formoterol on exacerbations, however, was not associated with blood eosinophil count or FENO. This last point is particularly interesting in light of GINA guidelines that prioritize this combination (Pavord ID et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8[7]:671-80).

Courtesy ACCP

More recently, a prespecified secondary analysis of the SIENA trial looked at 295 subjects with mild persistent asthma (237 adults aged 18+, and 58 adolescents aged 12-17). The primary outcome was a composite of asthma control (treatment failure, asthma control days, and FEV₁). They found that sputum eosinophil levels, blood eosinophil levels, and FENO all predicted response to ICS in adults; however, the area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AUC) was less than 0.7 for each of these findings, which was below the threshold for acceptability. A blood eosinophil count of ≥100 cells/μL offered 87% sensitivity and 17% specificity for response to ICS (Krishnan JA et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022;19[3]:372-80).

What does this tell us? Blood eosinophil count may help determine who will respond to ICS, and there remains utility in assessing blood eosinophil count in severe asthma for determining candidacy for biologic therapies. However, the overall utility of blood eosinophils in mild to moderate asthma is not as clear.

But, are we asking the right questions? Many studies look at a single blood eosinophil level, either at a single point in time, a baseline level, or a highest level over a specific time period. But do eosinophil counts vary over time?

A 2018 single-center study initially asked this question. The authors evaluated blood eosinophil levels in 219 adult patients at the NYU/Bellevue Hospital Asthma Clinic over a 5-year period. They found that individual patients had variable eosinophil levels. For example, only 6% (n=13) of patients had levels consistently above 300 cells/μL, but nearly 50% (n=104) had at least one level above 300. The degree of variability was then assessed by K-mean clustering yielding three clusters. Cluster 2 had the largest variability in blood eosinophil counts and a slightly higher absolute eosinophil level. While not significant, there was a suggestion of worse asthma control with more hospitalizations and more prescriptions for multiple controllers in this cluster with more variability. Clearly, this warranted further study (Rakowski E et al. Clin Exp Allergy. 2019;49[2]:163-70).

Variability was re-examined more recently in 2021. A post hoc analysis of two phase III clinical trials from the reslizumab BREATH program looked at eosinophil counts in the 476 patients randomized to receive placebo during the 52-week study. These patients did have eosinophilic asthma by definition and had to have an elevated eosinophil count >400 cells/μL over the 4-week enrollment period to enter the study. However, 124 patients (26.1%) had an eosinophil level <400 cells/μL immediately before the first dose of placebo. The primary outcome was variability in blood eosinophil count. Of patients who started with serum eosinophils <400, 27% to 56% of patients shifted to the ≥400 cells/μL category during the treatment period (this wide range is across three categories of low “baseline” blood eosinophil count; <150, 150 to 300, and 300 to 400). On the contrary, patients who started with eosinophils ≥400 cells/μL tended to stay at that level. The variability is reduced by taking two to three repeat measurements at baseline (Corren et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9[3]:1224-31).

Does this variability have clinical significance? A recent retrospective cohort study looked at 10,059 stable adult patients with asthma from the MAJORICA cohort in Spain, compared with 8,557 control subjects. The primary outcome was total blood eosinophil count and an “eosinophil variability index” (EVI) where EVI=(Eosmax – Eosmin / Eosmax) x 100%. They found that an elevated EVI was associated with hospitalization, more so than maximum eosinophil count or any other eosinophil count variable, with an odds ratio of 3.18 by univariate regression (2.51 by multivariate). They also found that patients with an EVI ≥50% were twice as likely to be hospitalized or visit the ED than those with a lower EVI (Toledo-Pons N et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022;19[3]:407-14). These results are very interesting and merit further research.

So, what to do with this information? We know that patients with peripheral eosinophilia and severe asthma symptoms are candidates for biologic therapy. They are also more likely to respond to steroids, although the utility of this assessment alone in mild to moderate asthma is less clear. It does seem that more variability in eosinophils over time may be linked to more difficult-to-treat asthma.

Should you check eosinophils in your patients with asthma? GINA 2021 guidelines say to consider it, and list blood eosinophilia as a risk factor for future exacerbation, even if patients have few asthma symptoms. They also say to repeat blood eosinophils in patients with severe asthma, if the level is low at first assessment, based on the studies discussed above. We would agree. We also see the blood eosinophil count as one part of a clinical assessment of a patient’s overall asthma control – even if the patient has mild symptoms. More study on variability is welcome.

Dr. Haber and Dr. Jamieson are with Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.

CHEST has been informed of the following deaths of CHEST members.

We remember our colleagues and extend our sincere condolences.



Edward C. Rosenow III, MD, Master FCCP

Jack Stanko, MD, MS, FCCP

Arthur S. Turetsky, MD, FCCP

CHEST has been informed of the following deaths of CHEST members.

We remember our colleagues and extend our sincere condolences.



Edward C. Rosenow III, MD, Master FCCP

Jack Stanko, MD, MS, FCCP

Arthur S. Turetsky, MD, FCCP

CHEST has been informed of the following deaths of CHEST members.

We remember our colleagues and extend our sincere condolences.



Edward C. Rosenow III, MD, Master FCCP

Jack Stanko, MD, MS, FCCP

Arthur S. Turetsky, MD, FCCP

Receiving a chronic disease diagnosis can be paralyzing, with a wide range of associated emotions. A patient’s family, physicians, and other health care professionals can provide a source of support, but, often, the strongest support comes from those who can empathize.

Someone who has lived with a diagnosis can provide guidance and empathy at a more personal level because, to them, it is just that – personal. Fred Schick and Betsy Glaeser have done just that by taking their personal experiences and using them to help others navigate their diagnoses.

Improving patients’ lives is the core focus of the American College of Chest Physicians and the CHEST Foundation. Events like the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction provide an opportunity for us to recognize and celebrate powerful stories such as Fred and Betsy’s, while also raising funds to support important initiatives that will improve patient care. Please consider joining the fight against lung disease by making a donation to the CHEST Foundation today at chestfoundation.org/donate.
 

Patient Advocate – Fred Schick

Increasing awareness of pulmonary fibrosis

Fred Schick of the Chicagoland area was diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 2017 after years of searching for the root cause of his worsening symptoms.

Fred started experiencing shortness of breath and labored breathing—once to the extent that he needed to be pulled out of the water on vacation despite being an active swimmer. Because Fred was a former cardiac patient, his doctors looked to his heart for a diagnosis.

It wasn’t until his primary care physician retired that he started seeing a new doctor who took a different look at his symptoms. In hearing about the strong changes in his exercise endurance, this particular doctor made the decision to refer Fred to a pulmonologist, which ultimately led Fred on the right path to his IPF diagnosis.
 

Helping others navigate the path

In his 5 years since being diagnosed with IPF, Fred uses his experience to advocate for others living with this illness. Active in support groups for those with IPF, he is especially focused on helping others navigate the first few months after receiving their diagnosis.

Fred knows from experience that receiving the IPF diagnosis is something to come to terms with but encourages others to look to him for an example of how to live with the illness.

“The first thing I say to someone who has been recently diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis is, ‘Whatever you’ve read on the Internet, don’t believe it,’ because there are a lot of people who live well beyond the 3- to 5-year expectancy you’ll see in your Google search.”

“I also encourage everyone to be their own health advocate – tell your doctor if anything in your life is abnormal because you know your body better than anyone.”

Like Fred, many living with IPF wait years for a diagnosis because of the commonality in the way the symptoms present, including shortness of breath, fatigue, difficulty breathing, and others. To address this delay, the American College of Chest Physicians, supported by the CHEST Foundation, partnered with the Three Lakes Foundation to create an initiative led by a steering committee of pulmonologists and primary care physicians to join together to shorten the time to diagnosis for interstitial lung diseases like IPF. Among other activities, the steering committee will work to create tools for physicians to use during patient intake that can more quickly bring IPF into the conversation when it is pertinent.
 

Patient Advocate – Betsy Glaeser

Blazing the trail for NTM

Local to New York, Betsy Glaeser was diagnosed with pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacteria disease (NTM) more than 20 years ago.

Leading up to her diagnosis, Betsy was frequently short of breath with overwhelming fatigue and fevers. She was hospitalized multiple times for pneumonia and treated again and again with short-term standard antibiotics. At the time (1998), there were no clinical programs dedicated to NTM, and when her sputum was tested, it was only for pneumonia.

As a financial consultant required to travel 4 days per week for work, Betsy grew especially concerned about her illness when she developed hemoptysis and began coughing up blood. Lacking local resources, she sought care at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, where she received her NTM diagnosis.

Based on the severity of her illness and her worsening symptoms, the recommendation of the Mayo Clinic was that she stop working. After 30 years of challenging jobs, quitting was very painful, but a Mayo doctor asked Betsy a very poignant question that resonated with her: “Are you planning to die for your employer?”

With that, she left her job and sought care for her illness. As her NTM developed a second, more resistant strain associated with her disease, requiring daily, constant treatment, Betsy was fortunate to be accepted into the National Institutes of Health NTM protocol, which has directed her care, coordinated with NYU-Langone.

Despite the challenges of having NTM, Betsy maintains an active and enriching life.
 

Leading with experience

Betsy uses her diagnosis and her experience with NTM to help others who are hearing their diagnoses for the first time. She serves as a charter member and co-leader of a New York NTM patient support group and serves as a member of the NTM Info & Research (NTMir) Board of Directors.

Her goal is to ensure that no one living with NTM feels alone or frightened.

“Not so long ago – and now, too, even – there were doctors who did not know how to treat NTM,” says Betsy. “But, it has really gotten better – as I’ve progressed through all of my medications and lived with this disease, NTM has progressed as well. I hope I helped expand NTM knowledge with my lived experiences, but I’ve been so fortunate to receive medical care from those doctors who knew the most about NTM.”

Receiving a chronic disease diagnosis can be paralyzing, with a wide range of associated emotions. A patient’s family, physicians, and other health care professionals can provide a source of support, but, often, the strongest support comes from those who can empathize.

Someone who has lived with a diagnosis can provide guidance and empathy at a more personal level because, to them, it is just that – personal. Fred Schick and Betsy Glaeser have done just that by taking their personal experiences and using them to help others navigate their diagnoses.

Improving patients’ lives is the core focus of the American College of Chest Physicians and the CHEST Foundation. Events like the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction provide an opportunity for us to recognize and celebrate powerful stories such as Fred and Betsy’s, while also raising funds to support important initiatives that will improve patient care. Please consider joining the fight against lung disease by making a donation to the CHEST Foundation today at chestfoundation.org/donate.
 

Patient Advocate – Fred Schick

Increasing awareness of pulmonary fibrosis

Fred Schick of the Chicagoland area was diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 2017 after years of searching for the root cause of his worsening symptoms.

Fred started experiencing shortness of breath and labored breathing—once to the extent that he needed to be pulled out of the water on vacation despite being an active swimmer. Because Fred was a former cardiac patient, his doctors looked to his heart for a diagnosis.

It wasn’t until his primary care physician retired that he started seeing a new doctor who took a different look at his symptoms. In hearing about the strong changes in his exercise endurance, this particular doctor made the decision to refer Fred to a pulmonologist, which ultimately led Fred on the right path to his IPF diagnosis.
 

Helping others navigate the path

In his 5 years since being diagnosed with IPF, Fred uses his experience to advocate for others living with this illness. Active in support groups for those with IPF, he is especially focused on helping others navigate the first few months after receiving their diagnosis.

Fred knows from experience that receiving the IPF diagnosis is something to come to terms with but encourages others to look to him for an example of how to live with the illness.

“The first thing I say to someone who has been recently diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis is, ‘Whatever you’ve read on the Internet, don’t believe it,’ because there are a lot of people who live well beyond the 3- to 5-year expectancy you’ll see in your Google search.”

“I also encourage everyone to be their own health advocate – tell your doctor if anything in your life is abnormal because you know your body better than anyone.”

Like Fred, many living with IPF wait years for a diagnosis because of the commonality in the way the symptoms present, including shortness of breath, fatigue, difficulty breathing, and others. To address this delay, the American College of Chest Physicians, supported by the CHEST Foundation, partnered with the Three Lakes Foundation to create an initiative led by a steering committee of pulmonologists and primary care physicians to join together to shorten the time to diagnosis for interstitial lung diseases like IPF. Among other activities, the steering committee will work to create tools for physicians to use during patient intake that can more quickly bring IPF into the conversation when it is pertinent.
 

Patient Advocate – Betsy Glaeser

Blazing the trail for NTM

Local to New York, Betsy Glaeser was diagnosed with pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacteria disease (NTM) more than 20 years ago.

Leading up to her diagnosis, Betsy was frequently short of breath with overwhelming fatigue and fevers. She was hospitalized multiple times for pneumonia and treated again and again with short-term standard antibiotics. At the time (1998), there were no clinical programs dedicated to NTM, and when her sputum was tested, it was only for pneumonia.

As a financial consultant required to travel 4 days per week for work, Betsy grew especially concerned about her illness when she developed hemoptysis and began coughing up blood. Lacking local resources, she sought care at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, where she received her NTM diagnosis.

Based on the severity of her illness and her worsening symptoms, the recommendation of the Mayo Clinic was that she stop working. After 30 years of challenging jobs, quitting was very painful, but a Mayo doctor asked Betsy a very poignant question that resonated with her: “Are you planning to die for your employer?”

With that, she left her job and sought care for her illness. As her NTM developed a second, more resistant strain associated with her disease, requiring daily, constant treatment, Betsy was fortunate to be accepted into the National Institutes of Health NTM protocol, which has directed her care, coordinated with NYU-Langone.

Despite the challenges of having NTM, Betsy maintains an active and enriching life.
 

Leading with experience

Betsy uses her diagnosis and her experience with NTM to help others who are hearing their diagnoses for the first time. She serves as a charter member and co-leader of a New York NTM patient support group and serves as a member of the NTM Info & Research (NTMir) Board of Directors.

Her goal is to ensure that no one living with NTM feels alone or frightened.

“Not so long ago – and now, too, even – there were doctors who did not know how to treat NTM,” says Betsy. “But, it has really gotten better – as I’ve progressed through all of my medications and lived with this disease, NTM has progressed as well. I hope I helped expand NTM knowledge with my lived experiences, but I’ve been so fortunate to receive medical care from those doctors who knew the most about NTM.”

Receiving a chronic disease diagnosis can be paralyzing, with a wide range of associated emotions. A patient’s family, physicians, and other health care professionals can provide a source of support, but, often, the strongest support comes from those who can empathize.

Someone who has lived with a diagnosis can provide guidance and empathy at a more personal level because, to them, it is just that – personal. Fred Schick and Betsy Glaeser have done just that by taking their personal experiences and using them to help others navigate their diagnoses.

Improving patients’ lives is the core focus of the American College of Chest Physicians and the CHEST Foundation. Events like the Belmont Stakes Dinner and Auction provide an opportunity for us to recognize and celebrate powerful stories such as Fred and Betsy’s, while also raising funds to support important initiatives that will improve patient care. Please consider joining the fight against lung disease by making a donation to the CHEST Foundation today at chestfoundation.org/donate.
 

Patient Advocate – Fred Schick

Increasing awareness of pulmonary fibrosis

Fred Schick of the Chicagoland area was diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 2017 after years of searching for the root cause of his worsening symptoms.

Fred started experiencing shortness of breath and labored breathing—once to the extent that he needed to be pulled out of the water on vacation despite being an active swimmer. Because Fred was a former cardiac patient, his doctors looked to his heart for a diagnosis.

It wasn’t until his primary care physician retired that he started seeing a new doctor who took a different look at his symptoms. In hearing about the strong changes in his exercise endurance, this particular doctor made the decision to refer Fred to a pulmonologist, which ultimately led Fred on the right path to his IPF diagnosis.
 

Helping others navigate the path

In his 5 years since being diagnosed with IPF, Fred uses his experience to advocate for others living with this illness. Active in support groups for those with IPF, he is especially focused on helping others navigate the first few months after receiving their diagnosis.

Fred knows from experience that receiving the IPF diagnosis is something to come to terms with but encourages others to look to him for an example of how to live with the illness.

“The first thing I say to someone who has been recently diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis is, ‘Whatever you’ve read on the Internet, don’t believe it,’ because there are a lot of people who live well beyond the 3- to 5-year expectancy you’ll see in your Google search.”

“I also encourage everyone to be their own health advocate – tell your doctor if anything in your life is abnormal because you know your body better than anyone.”

Like Fred, many living with IPF wait years for a diagnosis because of the commonality in the way the symptoms present, including shortness of breath, fatigue, difficulty breathing, and others. To address this delay, the American College of Chest Physicians, supported by the CHEST Foundation, partnered with the Three Lakes Foundation to create an initiative led by a steering committee of pulmonologists and primary care physicians to join together to shorten the time to diagnosis for interstitial lung diseases like IPF. Among other activities, the steering committee will work to create tools for physicians to use during patient intake that can more quickly bring IPF into the conversation when it is pertinent.
 

Patient Advocate – Betsy Glaeser

Blazing the trail for NTM

Local to New York, Betsy Glaeser was diagnosed with pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacteria disease (NTM) more than 20 years ago.

Leading up to her diagnosis, Betsy was frequently short of breath with overwhelming fatigue and fevers. She was hospitalized multiple times for pneumonia and treated again and again with short-term standard antibiotics. At the time (1998), there were no clinical programs dedicated to NTM, and when her sputum was tested, it was only for pneumonia.

As a financial consultant required to travel 4 days per week for work, Betsy grew especially concerned about her illness when she developed hemoptysis and began coughing up blood. Lacking local resources, she sought care at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, where she received her NTM diagnosis.

Based on the severity of her illness and her worsening symptoms, the recommendation of the Mayo Clinic was that she stop working. After 30 years of challenging jobs, quitting was very painful, but a Mayo doctor asked Betsy a very poignant question that resonated with her: “Are you planning to die for your employer?”

With that, she left her job and sought care for her illness. As her NTM developed a second, more resistant strain associated with her disease, requiring daily, constant treatment, Betsy was fortunate to be accepted into the National Institutes of Health NTM protocol, which has directed her care, coordinated with NYU-Langone.

Despite the challenges of having NTM, Betsy maintains an active and enriching life.
 

Leading with experience

Betsy uses her diagnosis and her experience with NTM to help others who are hearing their diagnoses for the first time. She serves as a charter member and co-leader of a New York NTM patient support group and serves as a member of the NTM Info & Research (NTMir) Board of Directors.

Her goal is to ensure that no one living with NTM feels alone or frightened.

“Not so long ago – and now, too, even – there were doctors who did not know how to treat NTM,” says Betsy. “But, it has really gotten better – as I’ve progressed through all of my medications and lived with this disease, NTM has progressed as well. I hope I helped expand NTM knowledge with my lived experiences, but I’ve been so fortunate to receive medical care from those doctors who knew the most about NTM.”

Affecting around 400,000 people in the United States, interstitial lung diseases (ILD), like pulmonary fibrosis (PF), present with symptoms that are similar to other more common lung diseases, frequently resulting in misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Some studies show that reaching a proper diagnosis for rarer lung diseases can take upwards of several years.

Despite scientific advancements and increased information available, timely and accurate diagnosis for PF remains a challenge. The course of the disease varies from person to person and can progress rapidly in some cases, increasing the necessity to have the condition diagnosed in its earliest stages. By the time patients learn they have PF, the condition may require reliance on oxygen use and hospitalizations, and it can lead to poor quality of life and a significantly shortened lifespan.

To address this issue, Three Lakes Foundation (TLF) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) recently announced their collaboration on a multiphase educational initiative led by a steering committee of medical experts aiming to reduce the time it takes to diagnose patients with ILDs like PF. Composed of pulmonologists, primary care physicians, and a nursing professional, the steering committee will work to create materials that will aid in identifying and diagnosing complex lung diseases quicker.

“As a catalyst for change in the PF community, Three Lakes Foundation spoke with patients, health care professionals, physicians, and advocacy groups to advance an understanding of the PF diagnostic experience,” said Dana Ball, executive director for Three Lakes Foundation. “We approached CHEST when it became apparent that primary care physicians could use specific tools to identify high-risk patients with pulmonary conditions. This collaboration is the result of our common need to increase awareness among health care professionals and to improve patient outcomes.”

Members of the expert steering committee include individuals from leading medical institutions, health systems, and organizations across the country:

• Daniel F. Dilling, MD, FCCP, Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL.
• Andrew Duggan, MPH, Patient Engagement and Innovation Leader representing Three Lakes Foundation, Boston, MA.
• Jessica Glennie, APRN, MSN, Nurse Practitioner, Interstitial Lung Disease Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
• Timothy Hernandez, MD, Family Medicine Physician, Chief Executive Officer of Entira Family Clinics, San Antonio, TX.
• Corey D. Kershaw, MD, FCCP, Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
• Tejaswini Kulkarni, MD, MPH, FCCP, Assistant Professor, Director, Interstitial Lung Disease Program, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
• William Lago, MD, Family Medicine Physician, Wooster Family Health Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Wooster, OH.
• Andrew H. Limper, MD, FCCP, Annenberg Professor of Pulmonary Medicine, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Director – Thoracic Disease Research Unit, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN.
• Anoop M. Nambiar, MD, MS, FCCP, Professor of Medicine, Founding Director of the UT Health San Antonio Center for Interstitial Lung Diseases, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX.
• Mary Beth Scholand, MD, Associate Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Diseases, Director, Interstitial Lung Program, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

“While interstitial lung diseases do not affect a substantial amount of the population, those touched by the disease are impacted tremendously,” says steering committee member and pulmonologist, Dr. Andrew H. Limper. “Any delay in receiving a diagnosis is time that could be dedicated to finding a treatment therapy that can improve their quality of life. I look forward to the work of this committee helping to shape how patients with ILDs are diagnosed and treated in the future.”

Starting with data-gathering surveys sent to both primary care physicians and pulmonologists, the committee will evaluate the findings to develop tools that can be used to aid in diagnosing complex lung diseases.

“Having experts from both pulmonary and primary care medicine as members of the steering committee is critical,” says steering committee member and family medicine physician, Dr. William Lago. “Patients first see their family medicine or primary care clinicians and, all too often, the most complex lung diseases present in ways that are indistinguishable from more common conditions like asthma and COPD. Bringing together experts in both fields will yield the best results in creating a path to diagnosis.”

Three Lakes Foundation is providing the initial funding for CHEST to begin designing an educational intervention that addresses the gaps in knowledge and practice and will play an active role in overseeing the development of the program.

For more information on the Bridging Specialties^™: Timely Diagnosis for Patients With ILD initiative and to sign up for updates, visit info.chestnet.org/bridging-specialties-timely-diagnosis-for-ild-patients.

Affecting around 400,000 people in the United States, interstitial lung diseases (ILD), like pulmonary fibrosis (PF), present with symptoms that are similar to other more common lung diseases, frequently resulting in misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Some studies show that reaching a proper diagnosis for rarer lung diseases can take upwards of several years.

Despite scientific advancements and increased information available, timely and accurate diagnosis for PF remains a challenge. The course of the disease varies from person to person and can progress rapidly in some cases, increasing the necessity to have the condition diagnosed in its earliest stages. By the time patients learn they have PF, the condition may require reliance on oxygen use and hospitalizations, and it can lead to poor quality of life and a significantly shortened lifespan.

To address this issue, Three Lakes Foundation (TLF) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) recently announced their collaboration on a multiphase educational initiative led by a steering committee of medical experts aiming to reduce the time it takes to diagnose patients with ILDs like PF. Composed of pulmonologists, primary care physicians, and a nursing professional, the steering committee will work to create materials that will aid in identifying and diagnosing complex lung diseases quicker.

“As a catalyst for change in the PF community, Three Lakes Foundation spoke with patients, health care professionals, physicians, and advocacy groups to advance an understanding of the PF diagnostic experience,” said Dana Ball, executive director for Three Lakes Foundation. “We approached CHEST when it became apparent that primary care physicians could use specific tools to identify high-risk patients with pulmonary conditions. This collaboration is the result of our common need to increase awareness among health care professionals and to improve patient outcomes.”

Members of the expert steering committee include individuals from leading medical institutions, health systems, and organizations across the country:

• Daniel F. Dilling, MD, FCCP, Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL.
• Andrew Duggan, MPH, Patient Engagement and Innovation Leader representing Three Lakes Foundation, Boston, MA.
• Jessica Glennie, APRN, MSN, Nurse Practitioner, Interstitial Lung Disease Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
• Timothy Hernandez, MD, Family Medicine Physician, Chief Executive Officer of Entira Family Clinics, San Antonio, TX.
• Corey D. Kershaw, MD, FCCP, Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
• Tejaswini Kulkarni, MD, MPH, FCCP, Assistant Professor, Director, Interstitial Lung Disease Program, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
• William Lago, MD, Family Medicine Physician, Wooster Family Health Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Wooster, OH.
• Andrew H. Limper, MD, FCCP, Annenberg Professor of Pulmonary Medicine, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Director – Thoracic Disease Research Unit, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN.
• Anoop M. Nambiar, MD, MS, FCCP, Professor of Medicine, Founding Director of the UT Health San Antonio Center for Interstitial Lung Diseases, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX.
• Mary Beth Scholand, MD, Associate Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Diseases, Director, Interstitial Lung Program, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

“While interstitial lung diseases do not affect a substantial amount of the population, those touched by the disease are impacted tremendously,” says steering committee member and pulmonologist, Dr. Andrew H. Limper. “Any delay in receiving a diagnosis is time that could be dedicated to finding a treatment therapy that can improve their quality of life. I look forward to the work of this committee helping to shape how patients with ILDs are diagnosed and treated in the future.”

Starting with data-gathering surveys sent to both primary care physicians and pulmonologists, the committee will evaluate the findings to develop tools that can be used to aid in diagnosing complex lung diseases.

“Having experts from both pulmonary and primary care medicine as members of the steering committee is critical,” says steering committee member and family medicine physician, Dr. William Lago. “Patients first see their family medicine or primary care clinicians and, all too often, the most complex lung diseases present in ways that are indistinguishable from more common conditions like asthma and COPD. Bringing together experts in both fields will yield the best results in creating a path to diagnosis.”

Three Lakes Foundation is providing the initial funding for CHEST to begin designing an educational intervention that addresses the gaps in knowledge and practice and will play an active role in overseeing the development of the program.

For more information on the Bridging Specialties^™: Timely Diagnosis for Patients With ILD initiative and to sign up for updates, visit info.chestnet.org/bridging-specialties-timely-diagnosis-for-ild-patients.

Affecting around 400,000 people in the United States, interstitial lung diseases (ILD), like pulmonary fibrosis (PF), present with symptoms that are similar to other more common lung diseases, frequently resulting in misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Some studies show that reaching a proper diagnosis for rarer lung diseases can take upwards of several years.

Despite scientific advancements and increased information available, timely and accurate diagnosis for PF remains a challenge. The course of the disease varies from person to person and can progress rapidly in some cases, increasing the necessity to have the condition diagnosed in its earliest stages. By the time patients learn they have PF, the condition may require reliance on oxygen use and hospitalizations, and it can lead to poor quality of life and a significantly shortened lifespan.

To address this issue, Three Lakes Foundation (TLF) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) recently announced their collaboration on a multiphase educational initiative led by a steering committee of medical experts aiming to reduce the time it takes to diagnose patients with ILDs like PF. Composed of pulmonologists, primary care physicians, and a nursing professional, the steering committee will work to create materials that will aid in identifying and diagnosing complex lung diseases quicker.

“As a catalyst for change in the PF community, Three Lakes Foundation spoke with patients, health care professionals, physicians, and advocacy groups to advance an understanding of the PF diagnostic experience,” said Dana Ball, executive director for Three Lakes Foundation. “We approached CHEST when it became apparent that primary care physicians could use specific tools to identify high-risk patients with pulmonary conditions. This collaboration is the result of our common need to increase awareness among health care professionals and to improve patient outcomes.”

Members of the expert steering committee include individuals from leading medical institutions, health systems, and organizations across the country:

• Daniel F. Dilling, MD, FCCP, Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL.
• Andrew Duggan, MPH, Patient Engagement and Innovation Leader representing Three Lakes Foundation, Boston, MA.
• Jessica Glennie, APRN, MSN, Nurse Practitioner, Interstitial Lung Disease Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
• Timothy Hernandez, MD, Family Medicine Physician, Chief Executive Officer of Entira Family Clinics, San Antonio, TX.
• Corey D. Kershaw, MD, FCCP, Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
• Tejaswini Kulkarni, MD, MPH, FCCP, Assistant Professor, Director, Interstitial Lung Disease Program, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
• William Lago, MD, Family Medicine Physician, Wooster Family Health Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Wooster, OH.
• Andrew H. Limper, MD, FCCP, Annenberg Professor of Pulmonary Medicine, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Director – Thoracic Disease Research Unit, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN.
• Anoop M. Nambiar, MD, MS, FCCP, Professor of Medicine, Founding Director of the UT Health San Antonio Center for Interstitial Lung Diseases, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX.
• Mary Beth Scholand, MD, Associate Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Diseases, Director, Interstitial Lung Program, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

“While interstitial lung diseases do not affect a substantial amount of the population, those touched by the disease are impacted tremendously,” says steering committee member and pulmonologist, Dr. Andrew H. Limper. “Any delay in receiving a diagnosis is time that could be dedicated to finding a treatment therapy that can improve their quality of life. I look forward to the work of this committee helping to shape how patients with ILDs are diagnosed and treated in the future.”

Starting with data-gathering surveys sent to both primary care physicians and pulmonologists, the committee will evaluate the findings to develop tools that can be used to aid in diagnosing complex lung diseases.

“Having experts from both pulmonary and primary care medicine as members of the steering committee is critical,” says steering committee member and family medicine physician, Dr. William Lago. “Patients first see their family medicine or primary care clinicians and, all too often, the most complex lung diseases present in ways that are indistinguishable from more common conditions like asthma and COPD. Bringing together experts in both fields will yield the best results in creating a path to diagnosis.”

Three Lakes Foundation is providing the initial funding for CHEST to begin designing an educational intervention that addresses the gaps in knowledge and practice and will play an active role in overseeing the development of the program.

For more information on the Bridging Specialties^™: Timely Diagnosis for Patients With ILD initiative and to sign up for updates, visit info.chestnet.org/bridging-specialties-timely-diagnosis-for-ild-patients.

Airways disorders network, bronchiectasis section

Phenotyping bronchiectasis: Focus on eosinophilic bronchiectasis

Bronchiectasis has been often linked to neutrophilic inflammation; however, 20% may have a predominantly eosinophilic inflammation.

Eosinophilic bronchiectasis has been associated with a distinct airway microbiome. Shoemark and colleagues showed in an analysis of 1,007 patients from five countries that 22.6% of patients had blood eosinophil counts (BEC) of >300 cells/μL. BEC of <100 cells/μL were associated with higher bronchiectasis severity and increased mortality (Shoemark et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[8]:894-902).

BEC of >300 cells/μL were correlated with Streptococcus- and Pseudomonas-dominated microbiome profiles. Compared with patients with BEC of <100 cells/μL, patients with 100-299 cells/μL (hazard ratio [HR], 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.33–4.25; P = .003) and those with >300 cells/μL (HR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval, 2.20–7.85; P = .0001) were associated with shorter time to exacerbation.

Eosinophilic inflammation is a risk factor for exacerbations in patients with P. aeruginosa infection and may be considered as a treatable trait. Shoemark and colleagues’ data show that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid treatment in patients with bronchiectasis who had blood eosinophil counts of >3%, and eosinophils contribute to bronchiectasis exacerbations.

Diffuse lung disease and lung transplant network, occupational and environmental health section

A ubiquitous invasion: The rise of microplastics

About 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste were produced between 1950 and 2015.¹ Their degradation into submillimeter fragments of 1 μm to 5 mm, is called microplastics (MP).² MP are vectors of pollutants, pathologic microorganisms, and chemical additives used in their fabrication.³ Exposure to MP is unavoidable as they are bio-persistent and ubiquitous, even indoors.⁴ MP have been detected in the snow of large metropolitan areas and in remote locations.⁵ Humans are exposed to MP via oral ingestion and inhalation. A Brazilian study of human lung autopsy specimens revealed the presence of MP in 13 of 20 subjects.³

In vitro studies have suggested a causal role of polystyrene-MP in the development of chronic pulmonary disease through the formation of reactive oxygen species, inhibition of cell proliferation, and cellular morphology aberration.⁶ MP can cause local effects due to macrophage-induced inflammation, or alternatively, be transported distantly to the pleura and the systemic circulation.

In addition, MP may disrupt the endocrine pathway due to its estrogenic effects.⁷ Larger MPs of 8 to 10 µm, like nylon, have been associated with interstitial lung disease.⁸ Lung biopsies from workers exposed to airborne synthetic fibers (acrylic, polyester, and terylene) have revealed different degrees of inflammation, granulomas, and interstitial fibrosis.⁹ Factory workers exposed to polyvinyl chloride dust have increased risk of exertional dyspnea and decreased pulmonary function.¹⁰ Due to the pervasive nature of MP, it is essential to establish the global burden of airborne MP and to determine its role in lung health.

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD 
Member-at-Large
 

*Tyler Church, DO 
Fellow-in-Training Member

*Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.
 

References

1. Rhodes CJ. Plastic pollution and potential solutions. Sci Prog. 2018;101(3):207-60.

2. Danopoulos E et al. Microplastic contamination of drinking water: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0236838.

3. Amato-Lourenço LF et al. Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue. J Hazard Mater. 2021;416:126.

4. Al Horr Y et al. Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Building and Environment. 2016;105:369-89.

5. Bergmann M et al. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci Adv. 2019;5:eaax1157.

6. Dong CD et al. Polystyrene microplastic particles: In vitro pulmonary toxicity assessment. J Hazard Mater. 2020;385:121575.

7. Amato-Lourenço LF et al. An emerging class of air pollutants: Potential effects of microplastics to respiratory human health. Sci Total Environ. 2020;749:141676.

8. Kern DG et al. Flock worker’s lung: Chronic interstitial lung disease in the nylon flocking industry. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129[4]:261-72. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med. 1999;130[3]:246.

9. Pimentel JC et al. Respiratory disease caused by synthetic fibers: a new occupational disease. Thorax. 1975;30:204-19.

10. Soutar CA et al. Epidemiological study of respiratory disease in workers exposed to polyvinyl chloride dust. Thorax. 1980;35:644-52.
 

Critical care network, palliative and end-of-life section

Discussing code status with families of critically ill patients

Discussing code status with patients is complex and emotional, especially when critically ill.

The complexity further increases when these conversations have to take place with family members.

Here are some practical tips to help have these conversations in a concise and compassionate manner.  

Introduction  

• Introduce yourself, and make sure to identify the correct decision-maker.   
• Get to know the patient.  

–What kind of person are they?  

–What brings them joy?  

• Find out what the family knows about the current clinical condition of their family member.   

–What have you been hearing from the medical team?  

–What are you worried about?  

Update    

• Fill in the gaps – update them on the clinical condition and ongoing management.  
• Discuss how you think they will respond to current management and further management options.   
• Allow them to process the information.  

Provide a medical recommendation    

• Example: We are worried he might die, and if his heart stops, interventions like CPR or intubation would not work, and we would not recommend them.  
• Do not pressure for a decision right away. (You can say “We do not need a decision today, so please take time to process this information.”)  

Respond to emotions    

• I can’t image how hard this must be.  
• Offer chaplain services if that is important to them.  

Things to avoid 

• Avoid aggressive language.  

–We will have to pound on their chest, break ribs.   

–They would be suffering.  

• Blaming or judgmental language.  

While this complex discussion r equires individualization, these tips will help set a framework for goals of care conversations that lead to high quality care for patients that aligns with their goals.   

Reference

Goldfish and Rosielle. Language for Routine Code Status Discussions, Fast Facts and Concepts #365, Palliative Care Network of Wisconsin.

Syed Nazeer Mahmood, MD
Fellow-in-Training Member

Anne Kelemen, LCSW
Member-at-Large

Airways disorders network, bronchiectasis section

Phenotyping bronchiectasis: Focus on eosinophilic bronchiectasis

Bronchiectasis has been often linked to neutrophilic inflammation; however, 20% may have a predominantly eosinophilic inflammation.

Eosinophilic bronchiectasis has been associated with a distinct airway microbiome. Shoemark and colleagues showed in an analysis of 1,007 patients from five countries that 22.6% of patients had blood eosinophil counts (BEC) of >300 cells/μL. BEC of <100 cells/μL were associated with higher bronchiectasis severity and increased mortality (Shoemark et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[8]:894-902).

BEC of >300 cells/μL were correlated with Streptococcus- and Pseudomonas-dominated microbiome profiles. Compared with patients with BEC of <100 cells/μL, patients with 100-299 cells/μL (hazard ratio [HR], 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.33–4.25; P = .003) and those with >300 cells/μL (HR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval, 2.20–7.85; P = .0001) were associated with shorter time to exacerbation.

Eosinophilic inflammation is a risk factor for exacerbations in patients with P. aeruginosa infection and may be considered as a treatable trait. Shoemark and colleagues’ data show that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid treatment in patients with bronchiectasis who had blood eosinophil counts of >3%, and eosinophils contribute to bronchiectasis exacerbations.

Diffuse lung disease and lung transplant network, occupational and environmental health section

A ubiquitous invasion: The rise of microplastics

About 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste were produced between 1950 and 2015.¹ Their degradation into submillimeter fragments of 1 μm to 5 mm, is called microplastics (MP).² MP are vectors of pollutants, pathologic microorganisms, and chemical additives used in their fabrication.³ Exposure to MP is unavoidable as they are bio-persistent and ubiquitous, even indoors.⁴ MP have been detected in the snow of large metropolitan areas and in remote locations.⁵ Humans are exposed to MP via oral ingestion and inhalation. A Brazilian study of human lung autopsy specimens revealed the presence of MP in 13 of 20 subjects.³

In vitro studies have suggested a causal role of polystyrene-MP in the development of chronic pulmonary disease through the formation of reactive oxygen species, inhibition of cell proliferation, and cellular morphology aberration.⁶ MP can cause local effects due to macrophage-induced inflammation, or alternatively, be transported distantly to the pleura and the systemic circulation.

In addition, MP may disrupt the endocrine pathway due to its estrogenic effects.⁷ Larger MPs of 8 to 10 µm, like nylon, have been associated with interstitial lung disease.⁸ Lung biopsies from workers exposed to airborne synthetic fibers (acrylic, polyester, and terylene) have revealed different degrees of inflammation, granulomas, and interstitial fibrosis.⁹ Factory workers exposed to polyvinyl chloride dust have increased risk of exertional dyspnea and decreased pulmonary function.¹⁰ Due to the pervasive nature of MP, it is essential to establish the global burden of airborne MP and to determine its role in lung health.

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD 
Member-at-Large
 

*Tyler Church, DO 
Fellow-in-Training Member

*Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.
 

References

1. Rhodes CJ. Plastic pollution and potential solutions. Sci Prog. 2018;101(3):207-60.

2. Danopoulos E et al. Microplastic contamination of drinking water: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0236838.

3. Amato-Lourenço LF et al. Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue. J Hazard Mater. 2021;416:126.

4. Al Horr Y et al. Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Building and Environment. 2016;105:369-89.

5. Bergmann M et al. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci Adv. 2019;5:eaax1157.

6. Dong CD et al. Polystyrene microplastic particles: In vitro pulmonary toxicity assessment. J Hazard Mater. 2020;385:121575.

7. Amato-Lourenço LF et al. An emerging class of air pollutants: Potential effects of microplastics to respiratory human health. Sci Total Environ. 2020;749:141676.

8. Kern DG et al. Flock worker’s lung: Chronic interstitial lung disease in the nylon flocking industry. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129[4]:261-72. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med. 1999;130[3]:246.

9. Pimentel JC et al. Respiratory disease caused by synthetic fibers: a new occupational disease. Thorax. 1975;30:204-19.

10. Soutar CA et al. Epidemiological study of respiratory disease in workers exposed to polyvinyl chloride dust. Thorax. 1980;35:644-52.
 

Critical care network, palliative and end-of-life section

Discussing code status with families of critically ill patients

Discussing code status with patients is complex and emotional, especially when critically ill.

The complexity further increases when these conversations have to take place with family members.

Here are some practical tips to help have these conversations in a concise and compassionate manner.  

Introduction  

• Introduce yourself, and make sure to identify the correct decision-maker.   
• Get to know the patient.  

–What kind of person are they?  

–What brings them joy?  

• Find out what the family knows about the current clinical condition of their family member.   

–What have you been hearing from the medical team?  

–What are you worried about?  

Update    

• Fill in the gaps – update them on the clinical condition and ongoing management.  
• Discuss how you think they will respond to current management and further management options.   
• Allow them to process the information.  

Provide a medical recommendation    

• Example: We are worried he might die, and if his heart stops, interventions like CPR or intubation would not work, and we would not recommend them.  
• Do not pressure for a decision right away. (You can say “We do not need a decision today, so please take time to process this information.”)  

Respond to emotions    

• I can’t image how hard this must be.  
• Offer chaplain services if that is important to them.  

Things to avoid 

• Avoid aggressive language.  

–We will have to pound on their chest, break ribs.   

–They would be suffering.  

• Blaming or judgmental language.  

While this complex discussion r equires individualization, these tips will help set a framework for goals of care conversations that lead to high quality care for patients that aligns with their goals.   

Reference

Goldfish and Rosielle. Language for Routine Code Status Discussions, Fast Facts and Concepts #365, Palliative Care Network of Wisconsin.

Syed Nazeer Mahmood, MD
Fellow-in-Training Member

Anne Kelemen, LCSW
Member-at-Large

Airways disorders network, bronchiectasis section

Phenotyping bronchiectasis: Focus on eosinophilic bronchiectasis

Bronchiectasis has been often linked to neutrophilic inflammation; however, 20% may have a predominantly eosinophilic inflammation.

Eosinophilic bronchiectasis has been associated with a distinct airway microbiome. Shoemark and colleagues showed in an analysis of 1,007 patients from five countries that 22.6% of patients had blood eosinophil counts (BEC) of >300 cells/μL. BEC of <100 cells/μL were associated with higher bronchiectasis severity and increased mortality (Shoemark et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205[8]:894-902).

BEC of >300 cells/μL were correlated with Streptococcus- and Pseudomonas-dominated microbiome profiles. Compared with patients with BEC of <100 cells/μL, patients with 100-299 cells/μL (hazard ratio [HR], 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.33–4.25; P = .003) and those with >300 cells/μL (HR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval, 2.20–7.85; P = .0001) were associated with shorter time to exacerbation.

Eosinophilic inflammation is a risk factor for exacerbations in patients with P. aeruginosa infection and may be considered as a treatable trait. Shoemark and colleagues’ data show that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid treatment in patients with bronchiectasis who had blood eosinophil counts of >3%, and eosinophils contribute to bronchiectasis exacerbations.

Diffuse lung disease and lung transplant network, occupational and environmental health section

A ubiquitous invasion: The rise of microplastics

About 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste were produced between 1950 and 2015.¹ Their degradation into submillimeter fragments of 1 μm to 5 mm, is called microplastics (MP).² MP are vectors of pollutants, pathologic microorganisms, and chemical additives used in their fabrication.³ Exposure to MP is unavoidable as they are bio-persistent and ubiquitous, even indoors.⁴ MP have been detected in the snow of large metropolitan areas and in remote locations.⁵ Humans are exposed to MP via oral ingestion and inhalation. A Brazilian study of human lung autopsy specimens revealed the presence of MP in 13 of 20 subjects.³

In vitro studies have suggested a causal role of polystyrene-MP in the development of chronic pulmonary disease through the formation of reactive oxygen species, inhibition of cell proliferation, and cellular morphology aberration.⁶ MP can cause local effects due to macrophage-induced inflammation, or alternatively, be transported distantly to the pleura and the systemic circulation.

In addition, MP may disrupt the endocrine pathway due to its estrogenic effects.⁷ Larger MPs of 8 to 10 µm, like nylon, have been associated with interstitial lung disease.⁸ Lung biopsies from workers exposed to airborne synthetic fibers (acrylic, polyester, and terylene) have revealed different degrees of inflammation, granulomas, and interstitial fibrosis.⁹ Factory workers exposed to polyvinyl chloride dust have increased risk of exertional dyspnea and decreased pulmonary function.¹⁰ Due to the pervasive nature of MP, it is essential to establish the global burden of airborne MP and to determine its role in lung health.

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD 
Member-at-Large
 

*Tyler Church, DO 
Fellow-in-Training Member

*Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.
 

References

1. Rhodes CJ. Plastic pollution and potential solutions. Sci Prog. 2018;101(3):207-60.

2. Danopoulos E et al. Microplastic contamination of drinking water: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(7):e0236838.

3. Amato-Lourenço LF et al. Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue. J Hazard Mater. 2021;416:126.

4. Al Horr Y et al. Occupant productivity and office indoor environment quality: A review of the literature. Building and Environment. 2016;105:369-89.

5. Bergmann M et al. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Sci Adv. 2019;5:eaax1157.

6. Dong CD et al. Polystyrene microplastic particles: In vitro pulmonary toxicity assessment. J Hazard Mater. 2020;385:121575.

7. Amato-Lourenço LF et al. An emerging class of air pollutants: Potential effects of microplastics to respiratory human health. Sci Total Environ. 2020;749:141676.

8. Kern DG et al. Flock worker’s lung: Chronic interstitial lung disease in the nylon flocking industry. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129[4]:261-72. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med. 1999;130[3]:246.

9. Pimentel JC et al. Respiratory disease caused by synthetic fibers: a new occupational disease. Thorax. 1975;30:204-19.

10. Soutar CA et al. Epidemiological study of respiratory disease in workers exposed to polyvinyl chloride dust. Thorax. 1980;35:644-52.
 

Critical care network, palliative and end-of-life section

Discussing code status with families of critically ill patients

Discussing code status with patients is complex and emotional, especially when critically ill.

The complexity further increases when these conversations have to take place with family members.

Here are some practical tips to help have these conversations in a concise and compassionate manner.  

Introduction  

• Introduce yourself, and make sure to identify the correct decision-maker.   
• Get to know the patient.  

–What kind of person are they?  

–What brings them joy?  

• Find out what the family knows about the current clinical condition of their family member.   

–What have you been hearing from the medical team?  

–What are you worried about?  

Update    

• Fill in the gaps – update them on the clinical condition and ongoing management.  
• Discuss how you think they will respond to current management and further management options.   
• Allow them to process the information.  

Provide a medical recommendation    

• Example: We are worried he might die, and if his heart stops, interventions like CPR or intubation would not work, and we would not recommend them.  
• Do not pressure for a decision right away. (You can say “We do not need a decision today, so please take time to process this information.”)  

Respond to emotions    

• I can’t image how hard this must be.  
• Offer chaplain services if that is important to them.  

Things to avoid 

• Avoid aggressive language.  

–We will have to pound on their chest, break ribs.   

–They would be suffering.  

• Blaming or judgmental language.  

While this complex discussion r equires individualization, these tips will help set a framework for goals of care conversations that lead to high quality care for patients that aligns with their goals.   

Reference

Goldfish and Rosielle. Language for Routine Code Status Discussions, Fast Facts and Concepts #365, Palliative Care Network of Wisconsin.

Syed Nazeer Mahmood, MD
Fellow-in-Training Member

Anne Kelemen, LCSW
Member-at-Large

The Relationship Between Insurance Status and The Affordable Care Act on Asthma Outcomes Among Low-Income Us Adults. By Dr. Rajat Suri et al.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Intensive Care Unit Patients With Respiratory Syncytial Virus Compared to Those With Influenza Infection: A Multicentre Matched Cohort Study. By Dr. Julien Coussement et al

“Can Do, Do Do” Quadrants and 6-Year All-Cause Mortality in Patients with COPD. By Dr. Anouk W. Vaes et al.

Trends in Geriatric Conditions Among Older Adults Admitted to US ICUs Between 1998 and 2015. By Dr. Julien Cobert et al.

Setting and Titrating Positive End-Expiratory Pressure. By Dr. Scott J. Millington et al.

COVID-19 in Lymphangioleiomyomatosis: An International Study of Outcomes and Impact of Mechanistic Target of Rapamycin Inhibition. By Dr. Bruno Guedes Baldi et al.

Perceptions of Life Support and Advance Care Planning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Study of Twitter Users. By Vishal R. Patel et al.

Framework for Integrating Equity Into Machine Learning Models: A Case Study. By Dr. Juan C. Rojas et al.

Comparison of Guidelines for Evaluation of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. By John Austin McCandlish et al.

Relationship Between CPAP Termination and All-Cause Mortality: A French Nationwide Database Analysis. By Dr. Jean-Louis Pépin et al.

Clinical Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer and Preexisting Interstitial Lung Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. Meng Zhang, et al.

The Impact of Persistent Smoking After Surgery on Long-Term Outcomes After Stage I Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Resection. By Dr. Brendan T. Heiden et al.

The Relationship Between Insurance Status and The Affordable Care Act on Asthma Outcomes Among Low-Income Us Adults. By Dr. Rajat Suri et al.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Intensive Care Unit Patients With Respiratory Syncytial Virus Compared to Those With Influenza Infection: A Multicentre Matched Cohort Study. By Dr. Julien Coussement et al

“Can Do, Do Do” Quadrants and 6-Year All-Cause Mortality in Patients with COPD. By Dr. Anouk W. Vaes et al.

Trends in Geriatric Conditions Among Older Adults Admitted to US ICUs Between 1998 and 2015. By Dr. Julien Cobert et al.

Setting and Titrating Positive End-Expiratory Pressure. By Dr. Scott J. Millington et al.

COVID-19 in Lymphangioleiomyomatosis: An International Study of Outcomes and Impact of Mechanistic Target of Rapamycin Inhibition. By Dr. Bruno Guedes Baldi et al.

Perceptions of Life Support and Advance Care Planning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Study of Twitter Users. By Vishal R. Patel et al.

Framework for Integrating Equity Into Machine Learning Models: A Case Study. By Dr. Juan C. Rojas et al.

Comparison of Guidelines for Evaluation of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. By John Austin McCandlish et al.

Relationship Between CPAP Termination and All-Cause Mortality: A French Nationwide Database Analysis. By Dr. Jean-Louis Pépin et al.

Clinical Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer and Preexisting Interstitial Lung Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. Meng Zhang, et al.

The Impact of Persistent Smoking After Surgery on Long-Term Outcomes After Stage I Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Resection. By Dr. Brendan T. Heiden et al.

The Relationship Between Insurance Status and The Affordable Care Act on Asthma Outcomes Among Low-Income Us Adults. By Dr. Rajat Suri et al.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Intensive Care Unit Patients With Respiratory Syncytial Virus Compared to Those With Influenza Infection: A Multicentre Matched Cohort Study. By Dr. Julien Coussement et al

“Can Do, Do Do” Quadrants and 6-Year All-Cause Mortality in Patients with COPD. By Dr. Anouk W. Vaes et al.

Trends in Geriatric Conditions Among Older Adults Admitted to US ICUs Between 1998 and 2015. By Dr. Julien Cobert et al.

Setting and Titrating Positive End-Expiratory Pressure. By Dr. Scott J. Millington et al.

COVID-19 in Lymphangioleiomyomatosis: An International Study of Outcomes and Impact of Mechanistic Target of Rapamycin Inhibition. By Dr. Bruno Guedes Baldi et al.

Perceptions of Life Support and Advance Care Planning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Study of Twitter Users. By Vishal R. Patel et al.

Framework for Integrating Equity Into Machine Learning Models: A Case Study. By Dr. Juan C. Rojas et al.

Comparison of Guidelines for Evaluation of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. By John Austin McCandlish et al.

Relationship Between CPAP Termination and All-Cause Mortality: A French Nationwide Database Analysis. By Dr. Jean-Louis Pépin et al.

Clinical Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer and Preexisting Interstitial Lung Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. Meng Zhang, et al.

The Impact of Persistent Smoking After Surgery on Long-Term Outcomes After Stage I Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Resection. By Dr. Brendan T. Heiden et al.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Overnight sleep electroencephalography (EEG) contains an abundance of brain wave data that could be mined to identify an individual’s risk for a host of health outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, and cardiovascular events, a researcher reported at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies. “Sleep EEGs contain decodable information about the risk of unfavorable outcomes,” said Haoqi Sun, PhD, an instructor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and lead study author. “The results suggest that it’s feasible to use sleep to identify people with high risk of unfavorable outcomes and it strengthens the concept of sleep as a window into brain and general health.”

The researchers performed a quantitative analysis of sleep data collected on 8,673 adults who had diagnostic sleep studies that included polysomnography (PSG). The analysis used ICD codes to consider these 11 health outcomes: dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, bipolar disorder, depression, and mortality.

Then, Dr. Sun explained, they extracted 86 spectral and time-domain features of REM and non-REM sleep from sleep EEG recordings, and analyzed that data by adjusting for eight covariates including age, sex, body mass index, and use of benzodiazepines, antidepressants, sedatives, antiseizure drugs, and stimulants.

Participants were partitioned into three sleep-quality groups: poor, average, and good. The outcome-wise mean prediction difference in 10-year cumulative incidence was 2.3% for the poor sleep group, 0.5% for the average sleep group, and 1.3% for the good sleep group.

The outcomes with the three greatest poor to average risk ratios were dementia (6.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.3), mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 5-7.5) and MCI or dementia (4; 95% CI, 3.2-4.9).
 

Ready for the clinic?

In an interview, Dr. Sun said the results demonstrated the potential of using EEG brain wave data to predict health outcomes on an individual basis, although he acknowledged that most of the 86 sleep features the researchers used are not readily available in the clinic.

He noted the spectral features used in the study can be captured through software compatible with PSG. “From there you can identify the various bands, the different frequency ranges, and then you can easily see within this range whether a person has a higher power or lower power,” he said. However, the spindle and slow-oscillation features that researchers used in the study are beyond the reach of most clinics.
 

Next steps

This research is in its early stage, Dr. Sun said, but at some point the data collected from sleep studies could be paired with machine learning to make the model workable for evaluating individual patients. “Our goal is to first make this individualized,” he said. “We want to minimize the noise in the recording and minimize the night-to-night variability in the findings. There is some clinical-informed approach and there is also some algorithm-informed approach where you can minimize the variation over time.”

The model also has the potential to predict outcomes, particularly with chronic diseases such as diabetes and dementia, well before a diagnosis is made, he said.
 

‘Fascinating’ and ‘provocative’

Donald Bliwise, PhD, professor of neurology at Emory Sleep Center in Atlanta, said the study was “fascinating; it’s provocative; it’s exciting and interesting,” but added, “Sleep is vital for health. That’s abundantly clear in a study like that, but trying to push it a little bit further with all of these 86 measurements of the EEG, I think it becomes complicated.”

The study methodology, particularly the use of cumulative incidence of various diseases, was laudable, he said, and the use of simpler EEG-measured sleep features, such as alpha band power, “make intuitive sense.”

But it’s less clear on how the more sophisticated features the study model used – for example, kurtosis of theta frequency or coupling between spindle and slow oscillation – rank on sleep quality, he said, adding that the researchers have most likely done that but couldn’t add that into the format of the presentation.

“Kurtosis of the theta frequency band we don’t get on everyone in the sleep lab,” Dr. Bliwise said. “We might be able to, but I don’t know how to quite plug that into a turnkey model.”

The clinical components of the study were conducted by M. Brandon Westover, MD, PhD, at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Robert J. Thomas, MD, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. The study received support from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Dr. Sun has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bliwise has no disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Overnight sleep electroencephalography (EEG) contains an abundance of brain wave data that could be mined to identify an individual’s risk for a host of health outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, and cardiovascular events, a researcher reported at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies. “Sleep EEGs contain decodable information about the risk of unfavorable outcomes,” said Haoqi Sun, PhD, an instructor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and lead study author. “The results suggest that it’s feasible to use sleep to identify people with high risk of unfavorable outcomes and it strengthens the concept of sleep as a window into brain and general health.”

The researchers performed a quantitative analysis of sleep data collected on 8,673 adults who had diagnostic sleep studies that included polysomnography (PSG). The analysis used ICD codes to consider these 11 health outcomes: dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, bipolar disorder, depression, and mortality.

Then, Dr. Sun explained, they extracted 86 spectral and time-domain features of REM and non-REM sleep from sleep EEG recordings, and analyzed that data by adjusting for eight covariates including age, sex, body mass index, and use of benzodiazepines, antidepressants, sedatives, antiseizure drugs, and stimulants.

Participants were partitioned into three sleep-quality groups: poor, average, and good. The outcome-wise mean prediction difference in 10-year cumulative incidence was 2.3% for the poor sleep group, 0.5% for the average sleep group, and 1.3% for the good sleep group.

The outcomes with the three greatest poor to average risk ratios were dementia (6.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.3), mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 5-7.5) and MCI or dementia (4; 95% CI, 3.2-4.9).
 

Ready for the clinic?

In an interview, Dr. Sun said the results demonstrated the potential of using EEG brain wave data to predict health outcomes on an individual basis, although he acknowledged that most of the 86 sleep features the researchers used are not readily available in the clinic.

He noted the spectral features used in the study can be captured through software compatible with PSG. “From there you can identify the various bands, the different frequency ranges, and then you can easily see within this range whether a person has a higher power or lower power,” he said. However, the spindle and slow-oscillation features that researchers used in the study are beyond the reach of most clinics.
 

Next steps

This research is in its early stage, Dr. Sun said, but at some point the data collected from sleep studies could be paired with machine learning to make the model workable for evaluating individual patients. “Our goal is to first make this individualized,” he said. “We want to minimize the noise in the recording and minimize the night-to-night variability in the findings. There is some clinical-informed approach and there is also some algorithm-informed approach where you can minimize the variation over time.”

The model also has the potential to predict outcomes, particularly with chronic diseases such as diabetes and dementia, well before a diagnosis is made, he said.
 

‘Fascinating’ and ‘provocative’

Donald Bliwise, PhD, professor of neurology at Emory Sleep Center in Atlanta, said the study was “fascinating; it’s provocative; it’s exciting and interesting,” but added, “Sleep is vital for health. That’s abundantly clear in a study like that, but trying to push it a little bit further with all of these 86 measurements of the EEG, I think it becomes complicated.”

The study methodology, particularly the use of cumulative incidence of various diseases, was laudable, he said, and the use of simpler EEG-measured sleep features, such as alpha band power, “make intuitive sense.”

But it’s less clear on how the more sophisticated features the study model used – for example, kurtosis of theta frequency or coupling between spindle and slow oscillation – rank on sleep quality, he said, adding that the researchers have most likely done that but couldn’t add that into the format of the presentation.

“Kurtosis of the theta frequency band we don’t get on everyone in the sleep lab,” Dr. Bliwise said. “We might be able to, but I don’t know how to quite plug that into a turnkey model.”

The clinical components of the study were conducted by M. Brandon Westover, MD, PhD, at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Robert J. Thomas, MD, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. The study received support from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Dr. Sun has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bliwise has no disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Overnight sleep electroencephalography (EEG) contains an abundance of brain wave data that could be mined to identify an individual’s risk for a host of health outcomes, including dementia, cognitive impairment, and cardiovascular events, a researcher reported at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies. “Sleep EEGs contain decodable information about the risk of unfavorable outcomes,” said Haoqi Sun, PhD, an instructor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and lead study author. “The results suggest that it’s feasible to use sleep to identify people with high risk of unfavorable outcomes and it strengthens the concept of sleep as a window into brain and general health.”

The researchers performed a quantitative analysis of sleep data collected on 8,673 adults who had diagnostic sleep studies that included polysomnography (PSG). The analysis used ICD codes to consider these 11 health outcomes: dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, bipolar disorder, depression, and mortality.

Then, Dr. Sun explained, they extracted 86 spectral and time-domain features of REM and non-REM sleep from sleep EEG recordings, and analyzed that data by adjusting for eight covariates including age, sex, body mass index, and use of benzodiazepines, antidepressants, sedatives, antiseizure drugs, and stimulants.

Participants were partitioned into three sleep-quality groups: poor, average, and good. The outcome-wise mean prediction difference in 10-year cumulative incidence was 2.3% for the poor sleep group, 0.5% for the average sleep group, and 1.3% for the good sleep group.

The outcomes with the three greatest poor to average risk ratios were dementia (6.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.3), mortality (5.7; 95% CI, 5-7.5) and MCI or dementia (4; 95% CI, 3.2-4.9).
 

Ready for the clinic?

In an interview, Dr. Sun said the results demonstrated the potential of using EEG brain wave data to predict health outcomes on an individual basis, although he acknowledged that most of the 86 sleep features the researchers used are not readily available in the clinic.

He noted the spectral features used in the study can be captured through software compatible with PSG. “From there you can identify the various bands, the different frequency ranges, and then you can easily see within this range whether a person has a higher power or lower power,” he said. However, the spindle and slow-oscillation features that researchers used in the study are beyond the reach of most clinics.
 

Next steps

This research is in its early stage, Dr. Sun said, but at some point the data collected from sleep studies could be paired with machine learning to make the model workable for evaluating individual patients. “Our goal is to first make this individualized,” he said. “We want to minimize the noise in the recording and minimize the night-to-night variability in the findings. There is some clinical-informed approach and there is also some algorithm-informed approach where you can minimize the variation over time.”

The model also has the potential to predict outcomes, particularly with chronic diseases such as diabetes and dementia, well before a diagnosis is made, he said.
 

‘Fascinating’ and ‘provocative’

Donald Bliwise, PhD, professor of neurology at Emory Sleep Center in Atlanta, said the study was “fascinating; it’s provocative; it’s exciting and interesting,” but added, “Sleep is vital for health. That’s abundantly clear in a study like that, but trying to push it a little bit further with all of these 86 measurements of the EEG, I think it becomes complicated.”

The study methodology, particularly the use of cumulative incidence of various diseases, was laudable, he said, and the use of simpler EEG-measured sleep features, such as alpha band power, “make intuitive sense.”

But it’s less clear on how the more sophisticated features the study model used – for example, kurtosis of theta frequency or coupling between spindle and slow oscillation – rank on sleep quality, he said, adding that the researchers have most likely done that but couldn’t add that into the format of the presentation.

“Kurtosis of the theta frequency band we don’t get on everyone in the sleep lab,” Dr. Bliwise said. “We might be able to, but I don’t know how to quite plug that into a turnkey model.”

The clinical components of the study were conducted by M. Brandon Westover, MD, PhD, at Massachusetts General Hospital, and Robert J. Thomas, MD, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. The study received support from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Dr. Sun has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bliwise has no disclosures.

Angela Intili, MD, an ob.gyn., was used to seeing her medical malpractice insurance premium rise slightly every couple of years. But she was shocked by the drastic rise she recently experienced.

In the last 2 years, Dr. Intili’s premiums shot from $60,000 to $130,000, she said.

“After 30 years of practice, this is the first time I’ve asked myself if I can even afford to continue practicing obstetrics and gynecology,” said Dr. Intili, 62, of Joliet, Ill. “It’s gotten very difficult to make ends meet as far as overhead because of the liability costs. I still love what I’m doing but I don’t know if I can afford to do it anymore.”

Even more frustrating for Dr. Intili was learning that claims in Illinois have sharply declined. From 2016 to 2020, tort filings in Illinois decreased by 43%, according to a state report.

“If claims are going down, I don’t understand why premium payments are going up,” she said.

Physicians across the country are experiencing a similar paradox. Claims are down, yet premiums are rising.

Medscape’s Malpractice Report 2021 found that 42% of primary care physicians were sued in 2020 through mid-2021, down from 52% in 2019. Fifty-six percent of specialists were sued in 2020 through mid-2021 compared with 62% in 2019, the report found. The pandemic was undoubtedly behind the decrease in suits, according to legal experts.

Yet, physicians paid higher premiums in 2021 and are on track for increases again in 2022, according to data and analysts.

According to Conning, direct premiums written for physicians increased 7.0% in 2021 (from $5.01 billion to $5.36 billion). Conning, an investment management firm that serves the insurance industry, analyzes annual financial reports filed by insurers to state insurance departments. The Medical Liability Monitor’s 2021 report found that premiums for internists, surgeons, and ob.gyns. in states without Patient Compensation Funds rose by an average of 2% in 2021.

The disparities raise questions about why physicians are paying higher premiums when having fewer claims is likely saving insurers’ money. Shouldn’t physicians’ rates reflect the reduction in claims?
 

Cases plummet during pandemic

During the pandemic, the volume of new medical malpractice claims dwindled to nearly nothing, said Michael Matray, editor of the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes medical liability insurance premiums.

“The court system closed for a while,” he said. “No elective procedures were being done in 2020 and the early parts of 2021. If you have no treatment, you have no malpractice, so of course, claims frequency tumbled down to a trickle.”

The number of large awards also decreased during the pandemic, noted Bill Burns, a director of insurance research at Conning.

“For claims that were already in the system, many of them could not be resolved because of the court closures, inability to take statements and depositions, etc.,” he said. “This resulted in a drop in verdicts.”

In 2021, there were 16 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, according to TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts. In 2020, there were six verdicts of $10 million or more, TransRe research found. This is down from 52 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2019 and 46 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2018.

But although the pandemic lowered claims and decreased the number of payouts, one important aspect was untouched by the COVID era, said Richard E. Anderson, MD, chairman and CEO for The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer, and TDC Group.

“It’s a fair question: If claims are down, why are premiums continuing to go up?” Dr. Anderson said. “The answer is severity.”
 

High-dollar verdicts pave expensive path

The upward trend in severity has continued for about 6 years and has not slowed, Dr. Anderson said. Severity refers to high-dollar verdicts and settlements.

“We’re seeing record-high verdicts all over the country,” he said. “We used to have maps that showed the top 10 medical malpractice verdicts or awards, and they would be clustered where you’d expect them to be, New York, Florida, Illinois, and so forth. Now, if you look at those top 10 verdicts, they could be anywhere in the country.”

In Minnesota for instance, a jury awarded a record $111 million in damages to a college student in May after finding a hospital and an orthopedic surgeon negligent in treating his broken leg. In April, a Kansas City jury awarded a family $25 million after finding that an ob.gyn. and hospital failed to properly treat a mother in labor, causing brain damage to her infant.  

Such record payouts factor into premium costs, said Ned Rand Jr., CEO for ProAssurance, a national medical liability insurer. Though only a minority of claims reach that level, when a high award occurs, it puts pressure on the ultimate cost to resolve claims, he said. The frequency of claims filed is also expected to soon rebound, he noted.

“As we price the product sitting here today, we have to factor both of those in,” Mr. Rand said. “That’s why we, as an industry, continue to see, by and large, rates going up. And we fell behind. Some of this severity, in particular, as an industry, we weren’t pricing fully for, so we’ve been playing catch-up.”

High-dollar awards – also called nuclear verdicts – set the arena for future settlements in similar cases, Dr. Anderson added.

“If it was an orthopedic case for instance, and there was a similar injury in another case, that’s the trial lawyers’ starting point for the award,” he said. “Now, they’re not going to get it, but it distorts the negotiations. As we have more and more nuclear verdicts, it becomes harder to settle claims for reasonable amounts.”
 

What does 2022 have in store?

Analysts say the backlog of malpractice claims in the court system could prove calamitous for premiums and the liability landscape.

Courts are slogging through the pileup caused by the pandemic, but it’s estimated that there is still about a one-third larger case backlog than normal, according to Mr. Matray.

Such delayed claims may end up costing more because of social inflation, said Mr. Burns.

“People look at the world differently than they did 2 years ago,” he said. “A jury may have awarded $5 million for a claim a few years ago. But then the pandemic hits, and we have the George Floyd incident, and we have people out of work and a shortage in baby formula. Yet, companies are still making a lot of money and many insurance companies are turning record profits. Today, that jury may look at a sympathetic malpractice victim and award $10 million for the same claim.”

Concerns also exist about a potential surge of new malpractice claims. Mr. Rand compares the possible wave to a large bubble.

“I liken it to a cartoon, when one character grabs the hose and a big bubble forms as the water builds up,” he said. “Then the character releases, and water comes flooding out. As an industry, we wait, wondering: Is there going to be this flood of claims as the court systems reopen and the statute of limitations approach around some of these claims? That’s an ongoing concern.”

As for impending premiums, physicians can expect rises in 2022 and again in 2023, according to Chris Wojciechowski, a partner at TigerRisk Partners, a reinsurance broker.

“In general, there is a lot of uncertainty around the state of the economy, the tort environment, litigation post COVID, and overall volatility across the capital markets,” he said. “Furthermore, thanks to social and financial inflation, the potential for very severe verdicts has increased dramatically, and as courthouses reopen, the trends are not looking favorable. While many of the physician carriers have strong balance sheets, they can’t lose money on an underwriting basis forever.”

For Dr. Intili, the Illinois ob.gyn., news of another impending increase in 2022 is distressing. She expects another 10%-20% rise in 2022, she said. If she were younger and earlier in her career, she might’ve considered moving, she said, but her family lives in Illinois and she cares for her older parents.

“I’m not ready to retire,” Dr. Intili said. “I’m looking into options, possibly becoming a hospitalist or doing locum tenens work. I’ve been a solo practitioner for 27 years and I love the autonomy. But these high premiums are making it almost impossible to continue.”

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

Angela Intili, MD, an ob.gyn., was used to seeing her medical malpractice insurance premium rise slightly every couple of years. But she was shocked by the drastic rise she recently experienced.

In the last 2 years, Dr. Intili’s premiums shot from $60,000 to $130,000, she said.

“After 30 years of practice, this is the first time I’ve asked myself if I can even afford to continue practicing obstetrics and gynecology,” said Dr. Intili, 62, of Joliet, Ill. “It’s gotten very difficult to make ends meet as far as overhead because of the liability costs. I still love what I’m doing but I don’t know if I can afford to do it anymore.”

Even more frustrating for Dr. Intili was learning that claims in Illinois have sharply declined. From 2016 to 2020, tort filings in Illinois decreased by 43%, according to a state report.

“If claims are going down, I don’t understand why premium payments are going up,” she said.

Physicians across the country are experiencing a similar paradox. Claims are down, yet premiums are rising.

Medscape’s Malpractice Report 2021 found that 42% of primary care physicians were sued in 2020 through mid-2021, down from 52% in 2019. Fifty-six percent of specialists were sued in 2020 through mid-2021 compared with 62% in 2019, the report found. The pandemic was undoubtedly behind the decrease in suits, according to legal experts.

Yet, physicians paid higher premiums in 2021 and are on track for increases again in 2022, according to data and analysts.

According to Conning, direct premiums written for physicians increased 7.0% in 2021 (from $5.01 billion to $5.36 billion). Conning, an investment management firm that serves the insurance industry, analyzes annual financial reports filed by insurers to state insurance departments. The Medical Liability Monitor’s 2021 report found that premiums for internists, surgeons, and ob.gyns. in states without Patient Compensation Funds rose by an average of 2% in 2021.

The disparities raise questions about why physicians are paying higher premiums when having fewer claims is likely saving insurers’ money. Shouldn’t physicians’ rates reflect the reduction in claims?
 

Cases plummet during pandemic

During the pandemic, the volume of new medical malpractice claims dwindled to nearly nothing, said Michael Matray, editor of the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes medical liability insurance premiums.

“The court system closed for a while,” he said. “No elective procedures were being done in 2020 and the early parts of 2021. If you have no treatment, you have no malpractice, so of course, claims frequency tumbled down to a trickle.”

The number of large awards also decreased during the pandemic, noted Bill Burns, a director of insurance research at Conning.

“For claims that were already in the system, many of them could not be resolved because of the court closures, inability to take statements and depositions, etc.,” he said. “This resulted in a drop in verdicts.”

In 2021, there were 16 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, according to TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts. In 2020, there were six verdicts of $10 million or more, TransRe research found. This is down from 52 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2019 and 46 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2018.

But although the pandemic lowered claims and decreased the number of payouts, one important aspect was untouched by the COVID era, said Richard E. Anderson, MD, chairman and CEO for The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer, and TDC Group.

“It’s a fair question: If claims are down, why are premiums continuing to go up?” Dr. Anderson said. “The answer is severity.”
 

High-dollar verdicts pave expensive path

The upward trend in severity has continued for about 6 years and has not slowed, Dr. Anderson said. Severity refers to high-dollar verdicts and settlements.

“We’re seeing record-high verdicts all over the country,” he said. “We used to have maps that showed the top 10 medical malpractice verdicts or awards, and they would be clustered where you’d expect them to be, New York, Florida, Illinois, and so forth. Now, if you look at those top 10 verdicts, they could be anywhere in the country.”

In Minnesota for instance, a jury awarded a record $111 million in damages to a college student in May after finding a hospital and an orthopedic surgeon negligent in treating his broken leg. In April, a Kansas City jury awarded a family $25 million after finding that an ob.gyn. and hospital failed to properly treat a mother in labor, causing brain damage to her infant.  

Such record payouts factor into premium costs, said Ned Rand Jr., CEO for ProAssurance, a national medical liability insurer. Though only a minority of claims reach that level, when a high award occurs, it puts pressure on the ultimate cost to resolve claims, he said. The frequency of claims filed is also expected to soon rebound, he noted.

“As we price the product sitting here today, we have to factor both of those in,” Mr. Rand said. “That’s why we, as an industry, continue to see, by and large, rates going up. And we fell behind. Some of this severity, in particular, as an industry, we weren’t pricing fully for, so we’ve been playing catch-up.”

High-dollar awards – also called nuclear verdicts – set the arena for future settlements in similar cases, Dr. Anderson added.

“If it was an orthopedic case for instance, and there was a similar injury in another case, that’s the trial lawyers’ starting point for the award,” he said. “Now, they’re not going to get it, but it distorts the negotiations. As we have more and more nuclear verdicts, it becomes harder to settle claims for reasonable amounts.”
 

What does 2022 have in store?

Analysts say the backlog of malpractice claims in the court system could prove calamitous for premiums and the liability landscape.

Courts are slogging through the pileup caused by the pandemic, but it’s estimated that there is still about a one-third larger case backlog than normal, according to Mr. Matray.

Such delayed claims may end up costing more because of social inflation, said Mr. Burns.

“People look at the world differently than they did 2 years ago,” he said. “A jury may have awarded $5 million for a claim a few years ago. But then the pandemic hits, and we have the George Floyd incident, and we have people out of work and a shortage in baby formula. Yet, companies are still making a lot of money and many insurance companies are turning record profits. Today, that jury may look at a sympathetic malpractice victim and award $10 million for the same claim.”

Concerns also exist about a potential surge of new malpractice claims. Mr. Rand compares the possible wave to a large bubble.

“I liken it to a cartoon, when one character grabs the hose and a big bubble forms as the water builds up,” he said. “Then the character releases, and water comes flooding out. As an industry, we wait, wondering: Is there going to be this flood of claims as the court systems reopen and the statute of limitations approach around some of these claims? That’s an ongoing concern.”

As for impending premiums, physicians can expect rises in 2022 and again in 2023, according to Chris Wojciechowski, a partner at TigerRisk Partners, a reinsurance broker.

“In general, there is a lot of uncertainty around the state of the economy, the tort environment, litigation post COVID, and overall volatility across the capital markets,” he said. “Furthermore, thanks to social and financial inflation, the potential for very severe verdicts has increased dramatically, and as courthouses reopen, the trends are not looking favorable. While many of the physician carriers have strong balance sheets, they can’t lose money on an underwriting basis forever.”

For Dr. Intili, the Illinois ob.gyn., news of another impending increase in 2022 is distressing. She expects another 10%-20% rise in 2022, she said. If she were younger and earlier in her career, she might’ve considered moving, she said, but her family lives in Illinois and she cares for her older parents.

“I’m not ready to retire,” Dr. Intili said. “I’m looking into options, possibly becoming a hospitalist or doing locum tenens work. I’ve been a solo practitioner for 27 years and I love the autonomy. But these high premiums are making it almost impossible to continue.”

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

Angela Intili, MD, an ob.gyn., was used to seeing her medical malpractice insurance premium rise slightly every couple of years. But she was shocked by the drastic rise she recently experienced.

In the last 2 years, Dr. Intili’s premiums shot from $60,000 to $130,000, she said.

“After 30 years of practice, this is the first time I’ve asked myself if I can even afford to continue practicing obstetrics and gynecology,” said Dr. Intili, 62, of Joliet, Ill. “It’s gotten very difficult to make ends meet as far as overhead because of the liability costs. I still love what I’m doing but I don’t know if I can afford to do it anymore.”

Even more frustrating for Dr. Intili was learning that claims in Illinois have sharply declined. From 2016 to 2020, tort filings in Illinois decreased by 43%, according to a state report.

“If claims are going down, I don’t understand why premium payments are going up,” she said.

Physicians across the country are experiencing a similar paradox. Claims are down, yet premiums are rising.

Medscape’s Malpractice Report 2021 found that 42% of primary care physicians were sued in 2020 through mid-2021, down from 52% in 2019. Fifty-six percent of specialists were sued in 2020 through mid-2021 compared with 62% in 2019, the report found. The pandemic was undoubtedly behind the decrease in suits, according to legal experts.

Yet, physicians paid higher premiums in 2021 and are on track for increases again in 2022, according to data and analysts.

According to Conning, direct premiums written for physicians increased 7.0% in 2021 (from $5.01 billion to $5.36 billion). Conning, an investment management firm that serves the insurance industry, analyzes annual financial reports filed by insurers to state insurance departments. The Medical Liability Monitor’s 2021 report found that premiums for internists, surgeons, and ob.gyns. in states without Patient Compensation Funds rose by an average of 2% in 2021.

The disparities raise questions about why physicians are paying higher premiums when having fewer claims is likely saving insurers’ money. Shouldn’t physicians’ rates reflect the reduction in claims?
 

Cases plummet during pandemic

During the pandemic, the volume of new medical malpractice claims dwindled to nearly nothing, said Michael Matray, editor of the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes medical liability insurance premiums.

“The court system closed for a while,” he said. “No elective procedures were being done in 2020 and the early parts of 2021. If you have no treatment, you have no malpractice, so of course, claims frequency tumbled down to a trickle.”

The number of large awards also decreased during the pandemic, noted Bill Burns, a director of insurance research at Conning.

“For claims that were already in the system, many of them could not be resolved because of the court closures, inability to take statements and depositions, etc.,” he said. “This resulted in a drop in verdicts.”

In 2021, there were 16 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, according to TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts. In 2020, there were six verdicts of $10 million or more, TransRe research found. This is down from 52 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2019 and 46 verdicts of $10 million or more in 2018.

But although the pandemic lowered claims and decreased the number of payouts, one important aspect was untouched by the COVID era, said Richard E. Anderson, MD, chairman and CEO for The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer, and TDC Group.

“It’s a fair question: If claims are down, why are premiums continuing to go up?” Dr. Anderson said. “The answer is severity.”
 

High-dollar verdicts pave expensive path

The upward trend in severity has continued for about 6 years and has not slowed, Dr. Anderson said. Severity refers to high-dollar verdicts and settlements.

“We’re seeing record-high verdicts all over the country,” he said. “We used to have maps that showed the top 10 medical malpractice verdicts or awards, and they would be clustered where you’d expect them to be, New York, Florida, Illinois, and so forth. Now, if you look at those top 10 verdicts, they could be anywhere in the country.”

In Minnesota for instance, a jury awarded a record $111 million in damages to a college student in May after finding a hospital and an orthopedic surgeon negligent in treating his broken leg. In April, a Kansas City jury awarded a family $25 million after finding that an ob.gyn. and hospital failed to properly treat a mother in labor, causing brain damage to her infant.  

Such record payouts factor into premium costs, said Ned Rand Jr., CEO for ProAssurance, a national medical liability insurer. Though only a minority of claims reach that level, when a high award occurs, it puts pressure on the ultimate cost to resolve claims, he said. The frequency of claims filed is also expected to soon rebound, he noted.

“As we price the product sitting here today, we have to factor both of those in,” Mr. Rand said. “That’s why we, as an industry, continue to see, by and large, rates going up. And we fell behind. Some of this severity, in particular, as an industry, we weren’t pricing fully for, so we’ve been playing catch-up.”

High-dollar awards – also called nuclear verdicts – set the arena for future settlements in similar cases, Dr. Anderson added.

“If it was an orthopedic case for instance, and there was a similar injury in another case, that’s the trial lawyers’ starting point for the award,” he said. “Now, they’re not going to get it, but it distorts the negotiations. As we have more and more nuclear verdicts, it becomes harder to settle claims for reasonable amounts.”
 

What does 2022 have in store?

Analysts say the backlog of malpractice claims in the court system could prove calamitous for premiums and the liability landscape.

Courts are slogging through the pileup caused by the pandemic, but it’s estimated that there is still about a one-third larger case backlog than normal, according to Mr. Matray.

Such delayed claims may end up costing more because of social inflation, said Mr. Burns.

“People look at the world differently than they did 2 years ago,” he said. “A jury may have awarded $5 million for a claim a few years ago. But then the pandemic hits, and we have the George Floyd incident, and we have people out of work and a shortage in baby formula. Yet, companies are still making a lot of money and many insurance companies are turning record profits. Today, that jury may look at a sympathetic malpractice victim and award $10 million for the same claim.”

Concerns also exist about a potential surge of new malpractice claims. Mr. Rand compares the possible wave to a large bubble.

“I liken it to a cartoon, when one character grabs the hose and a big bubble forms as the water builds up,” he said. “Then the character releases, and water comes flooding out. As an industry, we wait, wondering: Is there going to be this flood of claims as the court systems reopen and the statute of limitations approach around some of these claims? That’s an ongoing concern.”

As for impending premiums, physicians can expect rises in 2022 and again in 2023, according to Chris Wojciechowski, a partner at TigerRisk Partners, a reinsurance broker.

“In general, there is a lot of uncertainty around the state of the economy, the tort environment, litigation post COVID, and overall volatility across the capital markets,” he said. “Furthermore, thanks to social and financial inflation, the potential for very severe verdicts has increased dramatically, and as courthouses reopen, the trends are not looking favorable. While many of the physician carriers have strong balance sheets, they can’t lose money on an underwriting basis forever.”

For Dr. Intili, the Illinois ob.gyn., news of another impending increase in 2022 is distressing. She expects another 10%-20% rise in 2022, she said. If she were younger and earlier in her career, she might’ve considered moving, she said, but her family lives in Illinois and she cares for her older parents.

“I’m not ready to retire,” Dr. Intili said. “I’m looking into options, possibly becoming a hospitalist or doing locum tenens work. I’ve been a solo practitioner for 27 years and I love the autonomy. But these high premiums are making it almost impossible to continue.”

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