CHEST Physician

Air pollution is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the world, after smoking, results of a novel analysis suggest. The researchers call for concerted action.

Ja'Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The new data show that the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to air pollution varies widely between countries. Serbia, Poland, China, Mongolia, and Turkey are among the worst affected. The analysis shows an association between deaths from lung cancer and the proportion of national energy that is produced from coal.

“Both smoking and air pollution are important causes of lung cancer,” said study presenter Christine D. Berg, MD, former codirector of the National Lung Screening Trial, and “both need to be eliminated to help prevent lung cancer and save lives.

“As lung cancer professionals, we can mitigate the effects of air pollution on causing lung cancer by speaking out for clean energy standards,” she said.

Dr. Berg presented the new analysis on Sept. 9 at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

She welcomed the recent statement issued by the IASLC in support of the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, which took place on Sept. 7. It was a call for action that emphasized the need for further efforts to improve air quality to protect human health.

The findings from the new analysis are “depressing,” commented Joachim G. J. V. Aerts, MD. PhD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

It is now clear that air pollution has an impact not only on the incidence of lung cancer but also on its outcome, he added.

Indeed, previous research showed that each 10 mcg/m3 increase in particular matter of 2.5 mcg in size was associated with a 15%-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. There was no difference in rates between women and men.

A key question, Dr. Aerts said, is whether reducing air pollution would be beneficial.

Efforts to reduce air pollution over recent decades in the United Kingdom have not led to a reduction in lung cancer deaths. This is because of the increase in life expectancy – individuals have been exposed to pollution for longer, albeit at lower levels, he pointed out.

Because of lockdowns during the COVID pandemic, travel has been greatly reduced. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in air pollution, “and this led to a decrease in the number of children born with low birth weight,” said Dr. Aerts.

Hopefully, that benefit will also be seen regarding other diseases, he added.

The call to action to reduce air pollution is of the “utmost importance,” he said. He noted that the focus should be on global, national, local, and personal preventive measures.

“It is time to join forces,” he added, “to ‘clean the air.’ ”

Dr. Berg’s presentation was warmly received on social media.

It was “fabulous,” commented Eric H. Bernicker, MD, director of medical thoracic oncology at Houston Methodist Cancer Center.

“Thoracic oncologists need to add air pollution to things they advocate about; we have an important voice here,” he added.

It is “so important to understand that air pollution is a human carcinogen,” commented Ivy Elkins, a lung cancer survivor and advocate and cofounder of the EGFR Resisters Lung Cancer Patient Group. “All you need are lungs to get lung cancer!”
 

Contribution of air pollution to lung cancer

In her presentation, Dr. Berg emphasized that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although the distribution between countries “depends on historical and current smoking patterns and the demographics of the population.”

Overall, data from GLOBOCAN 2018 indicate that annually there are approximately 2.1 million incident cases of lung cancer and almost 1.8 million lung cancer deaths around the globe.

A recent study estimated that, worldwide, 14.1% of all lung cancer deaths, including in never-smokers, are directly linked to air pollution.

Dr. Berg said that this makes it the “second-leading cause of lung cancer” behind smoking.

The figure is somewhat lower for the United States, where around 4.7% of lung cancer deaths each year are directly attributable to pollution. However, with “the wildfires out West, we’re going to be seeing more of a toll from air pollution,” she predicted.

She pointed out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter, as a human carcinogen on the basis of evidence of an association with lung cancer.

It is thought that direct deposits and local effects of particulate matter lead to oxidative damage and low-grade chronic inflammation. These in turn result in molecular changes that affect DNA and gene transcription and inhibit apoptosis, all of which lead to the development of cancerous lesions, she explained.

Synthesizing various estimates on global burden of disease, Dr. Berg and colleagues calculated that in 2019 the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to particular matter in people aged 50-69 years was highest in Serbia, at 36.88 attributable deaths per 100,000.

Next was Poland, with a rate of 27.97 per 100,000, followed by China at 24.63 per 100,000, Mongolia at 19.71 per 100,000, and Turkey at 19.2 per 100,000.

The major sources of air pollution in the most affected countries were transportation, indoor cooking, and energy sources, she said.

In Serbia, 70% of energy production was from coal. It was 74% in Poland, 65% in China, 80% in Mongolia, 35% in Turkey, and 19% in the United States.

At the time of the analysis, only 17.3% of U.S. adults were smokers, and the air concentration of particular matter of 2.5 mcm was 9.6% mcg/m³. Both of these rates are far below those seen in more severely affected countries.

“But 40% of our energy now comes from natural gas,” noted Dr. Berg, “which is still a pollutant and a source of methane. It’s a very potent greenhouse gas.”

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Berg has relationships with GRAIL and Mercy BioAnalytics. Dr. Aerts has relationships with Amphera, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Roche.

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

Air pollution is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the world, after smoking, results of a novel analysis suggest. The researchers call for concerted action.

Ja'Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The new data show that the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to air pollution varies widely between countries. Serbia, Poland, China, Mongolia, and Turkey are among the worst affected. The analysis shows an association between deaths from lung cancer and the proportion of national energy that is produced from coal.

“Both smoking and air pollution are important causes of lung cancer,” said study presenter Christine D. Berg, MD, former codirector of the National Lung Screening Trial, and “both need to be eliminated to help prevent lung cancer and save lives.

“As lung cancer professionals, we can mitigate the effects of air pollution on causing lung cancer by speaking out for clean energy standards,” she said.

Dr. Berg presented the new analysis on Sept. 9 at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

She welcomed the recent statement issued by the IASLC in support of the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, which took place on Sept. 7. It was a call for action that emphasized the need for further efforts to improve air quality to protect human health.

The findings from the new analysis are “depressing,” commented Joachim G. J. V. Aerts, MD. PhD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

It is now clear that air pollution has an impact not only on the incidence of lung cancer but also on its outcome, he added.

Indeed, previous research showed that each 10 mcg/m3 increase in particular matter of 2.5 mcg in size was associated with a 15%-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. There was no difference in rates between women and men.

A key question, Dr. Aerts said, is whether reducing air pollution would be beneficial.

Efforts to reduce air pollution over recent decades in the United Kingdom have not led to a reduction in lung cancer deaths. This is because of the increase in life expectancy – individuals have been exposed to pollution for longer, albeit at lower levels, he pointed out.

Because of lockdowns during the COVID pandemic, travel has been greatly reduced. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in air pollution, “and this led to a decrease in the number of children born with low birth weight,” said Dr. Aerts.

Hopefully, that benefit will also be seen regarding other diseases, he added.

The call to action to reduce air pollution is of the “utmost importance,” he said. He noted that the focus should be on global, national, local, and personal preventive measures.

“It is time to join forces,” he added, “to ‘clean the air.’ ”

Dr. Berg’s presentation was warmly received on social media.

It was “fabulous,” commented Eric H. Bernicker, MD, director of medical thoracic oncology at Houston Methodist Cancer Center.

“Thoracic oncologists need to add air pollution to things they advocate about; we have an important voice here,” he added.

It is “so important to understand that air pollution is a human carcinogen,” commented Ivy Elkins, a lung cancer survivor and advocate and cofounder of the EGFR Resisters Lung Cancer Patient Group. “All you need are lungs to get lung cancer!”
 

Contribution of air pollution to lung cancer

In her presentation, Dr. Berg emphasized that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although the distribution between countries “depends on historical and current smoking patterns and the demographics of the population.”

Overall, data from GLOBOCAN 2018 indicate that annually there are approximately 2.1 million incident cases of lung cancer and almost 1.8 million lung cancer deaths around the globe.

A recent study estimated that, worldwide, 14.1% of all lung cancer deaths, including in never-smokers, are directly linked to air pollution.

Dr. Berg said that this makes it the “second-leading cause of lung cancer” behind smoking.

The figure is somewhat lower for the United States, where around 4.7% of lung cancer deaths each year are directly attributable to pollution. However, with “the wildfires out West, we’re going to be seeing more of a toll from air pollution,” she predicted.

She pointed out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter, as a human carcinogen on the basis of evidence of an association with lung cancer.

It is thought that direct deposits and local effects of particulate matter lead to oxidative damage and low-grade chronic inflammation. These in turn result in molecular changes that affect DNA and gene transcription and inhibit apoptosis, all of which lead to the development of cancerous lesions, she explained.

Synthesizing various estimates on global burden of disease, Dr. Berg and colleagues calculated that in 2019 the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to particular matter in people aged 50-69 years was highest in Serbia, at 36.88 attributable deaths per 100,000.

Next was Poland, with a rate of 27.97 per 100,000, followed by China at 24.63 per 100,000, Mongolia at 19.71 per 100,000, and Turkey at 19.2 per 100,000.

The major sources of air pollution in the most affected countries were transportation, indoor cooking, and energy sources, she said.

In Serbia, 70% of energy production was from coal. It was 74% in Poland, 65% in China, 80% in Mongolia, 35% in Turkey, and 19% in the United States.

At the time of the analysis, only 17.3% of U.S. adults were smokers, and the air concentration of particular matter of 2.5 mcm was 9.6% mcg/m³. Both of these rates are far below those seen in more severely affected countries.

“But 40% of our energy now comes from natural gas,” noted Dr. Berg, “which is still a pollutant and a source of methane. It’s a very potent greenhouse gas.”

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Berg has relationships with GRAIL and Mercy BioAnalytics. Dr. Aerts has relationships with Amphera, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Roche.

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

Air pollution is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the world, after smoking, results of a novel analysis suggest. The researchers call for concerted action.

Ja'Crispy/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The new data show that the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to air pollution varies widely between countries. Serbia, Poland, China, Mongolia, and Turkey are among the worst affected. The analysis shows an association between deaths from lung cancer and the proportion of national energy that is produced from coal.

“Both smoking and air pollution are important causes of lung cancer,” said study presenter Christine D. Berg, MD, former codirector of the National Lung Screening Trial, and “both need to be eliminated to help prevent lung cancer and save lives.

“As lung cancer professionals, we can mitigate the effects of air pollution on causing lung cancer by speaking out for clean energy standards,” she said.

Dr. Berg presented the new analysis on Sept. 9 at the 2021 World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was organized by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

She welcomed the recent statement issued by the IASLC in support of the International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies, which took place on Sept. 7. It was a call for action that emphasized the need for further efforts to improve air quality to protect human health.

The findings from the new analysis are “depressing,” commented Joachim G. J. V. Aerts, MD. PhD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

It is now clear that air pollution has an impact not only on the incidence of lung cancer but also on its outcome, he added.

Indeed, previous research showed that each 10 mcg/m3 increase in particular matter of 2.5 mcg in size was associated with a 15%-27% increase in lung cancer mortality. There was no difference in rates between women and men.

A key question, Dr. Aerts said, is whether reducing air pollution would be beneficial.

Efforts to reduce air pollution over recent decades in the United Kingdom have not led to a reduction in lung cancer deaths. This is because of the increase in life expectancy – individuals have been exposed to pollution for longer, albeit at lower levels, he pointed out.

Because of lockdowns during the COVID pandemic, travel has been greatly reduced. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in air pollution, “and this led to a decrease in the number of children born with low birth weight,” said Dr. Aerts.

Hopefully, that benefit will also be seen regarding other diseases, he added.

The call to action to reduce air pollution is of the “utmost importance,” he said. He noted that the focus should be on global, national, local, and personal preventive measures.

“It is time to join forces,” he added, “to ‘clean the air.’ ”

Dr. Berg’s presentation was warmly received on social media.

It was “fabulous,” commented Eric H. Bernicker, MD, director of medical thoracic oncology at Houston Methodist Cancer Center.

“Thoracic oncologists need to add air pollution to things they advocate about; we have an important voice here,” he added.

It is “so important to understand that air pollution is a human carcinogen,” commented Ivy Elkins, a lung cancer survivor and advocate and cofounder of the EGFR Resisters Lung Cancer Patient Group. “All you need are lungs to get lung cancer!”
 

Contribution of air pollution to lung cancer

In her presentation, Dr. Berg emphasized that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although the distribution between countries “depends on historical and current smoking patterns and the demographics of the population.”

Overall, data from GLOBOCAN 2018 indicate that annually there are approximately 2.1 million incident cases of lung cancer and almost 1.8 million lung cancer deaths around the globe.

A recent study estimated that, worldwide, 14.1% of all lung cancer deaths, including in never-smokers, are directly linked to air pollution.

Dr. Berg said that this makes it the “second-leading cause of lung cancer” behind smoking.

The figure is somewhat lower for the United States, where around 4.7% of lung cancer deaths each year are directly attributable to pollution. However, with “the wildfires out West, we’re going to be seeing more of a toll from air pollution,” she predicted.

She pointed out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies outdoor air pollution, especially particulate matter, as a human carcinogen on the basis of evidence of an association with lung cancer.

It is thought that direct deposits and local effects of particulate matter lead to oxidative damage and low-grade chronic inflammation. These in turn result in molecular changes that affect DNA and gene transcription and inhibit apoptosis, all of which lead to the development of cancerous lesions, she explained.

Synthesizing various estimates on global burden of disease, Dr. Berg and colleagues calculated that in 2019 the rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to particular matter in people aged 50-69 years was highest in Serbia, at 36.88 attributable deaths per 100,000.

Next was Poland, with a rate of 27.97 per 100,000, followed by China at 24.63 per 100,000, Mongolia at 19.71 per 100,000, and Turkey at 19.2 per 100,000.

The major sources of air pollution in the most affected countries were transportation, indoor cooking, and energy sources, she said.

In Serbia, 70% of energy production was from coal. It was 74% in Poland, 65% in China, 80% in Mongolia, 35% in Turkey, and 19% in the United States.

At the time of the analysis, only 17.3% of U.S. adults were smokers, and the air concentration of particular matter of 2.5 mcm was 9.6% mcg/m³. Both of these rates are far below those seen in more severely affected countries.

“But 40% of our energy now comes from natural gas,” noted Dr. Berg, “which is still a pollutant and a source of methane. It’s a very potent greenhouse gas.”

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Berg has relationships with GRAIL and Mercy BioAnalytics. Dr. Aerts has relationships with Amphera, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Roche.

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

At 18 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 on people with diabetes have become clearer, but knowledge gaps remain, say epidemiologists.

“COVID-19 has had a devastating effect on the population with diabetes, and conversely, the high prevalence of diabetes and uncontrolled diabetes has exacerbated the problem,” Edward W. Gregg, PhD, Imperial College London, lead author of a new literature review, told this news organization.

“As it becomes clear that the COVID-19 pandemic will be with us in different forms for the foreseeable future, the emphasis for people with diabetes needs to be continued primary care, glycemic management, and vaccination to reduce the long-term impact of COVID-19 in this population,” he added.

In data, mostly from case series, the review shows that more than one-third of people hospitalized with COVID-19 have diabetes. It is published in the September issue of Diabetes Care.

People with diabetes are more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than those without diabetes, even after adjustment for age, sex, and other underlying conditions. Diabetes also accounts for 30%-40% of severe COVID-19 cases and deaths. Among those with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19, 21%-43% require intensive care, and the case fatality rate is about 25%.

In one of the few multivariate analyses that examined type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, conducted in the U.K., the odds of in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths, compared with people without diabetes, were almost three times higher (odds ratio, 2.9) for individuals with type 1 diabetes and almost twice as high (OR, 1.8) for those with type 2, after adjustment for comorbidities.

The causes of death appear to be a combination of factors specific to the SARS-CoV-2 infection and to diabetes-related factors, Dr. Gregg said in an interview.

“Much of the increased risk is due to the fact that people with diabetes have more comorbid factors, but there are many other mechanisms that appear to further increase risk, including the inflammatory and immune responses of people with diabetes, and hyperglycemia appears to have an exacerbating effect by itself.”
 

Elevated glucose is clear risk factor for COVID-19 severity

Elevated A1c was identified among several other overall predictors of poor COVID-19 outcomes, including obesity as well as comorbid kidney and cardiovascular disease.

High blood glucose levels at the time of admission in people with previously diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes emerged as a clear predictor of worse outcomes. For example, among 605 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in China, those with fasting plasma glucose 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL) and ≥7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) had odds ratios of poor outcomes within 28 days of 2.6 and 4.0 compared with FPG <6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL).

Population-based studies in the U.K. found that A1c levels measured months before COVID-19 hospitalization were associated with risk for intensive care unit admission and/or death, particularly among those with type 1 diabetes. Overall, the death rate was 36% higher for those with A1c of 9%-9.9% versus 6.5%-7%.

Despite the link between high A1c and death, there is as yet no clear evidence that normalizing blood glucose levels minimizes COVID-19 severity, Dr. Gregg said.

“There are data that suggest poor glycemic control is associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. This is indirect evidence that managing blood sugar will help, but more direct evidence is needed.”
 

Evidence gaps identified

Dr. Gregg and co-authors Marisa Sophiea, PhD, MSc, and Misghina Weldegiorgis, PhD, BSc, also from Imperial College London, identify three areas in which more data are needed.

First, more information is needed to determine whether exposure, infection, and hospitalization risks differ by diabetes status and how those factors affect outcomes. The same studies would also be important to identify how factors such as behavior, masking, and lockdown policies, risk factor control, and household/community environments affect risk in people with diabetes.

Second, studies are needed to better understand indirect effects of the pandemic, such as care and management factors. Some of these, such as the advent of telehealth, may turn out to be beneficial in the long run, they note.

Finally, the pandemic has “brought a wealth of natural experiments,” such as how vaccination programs and other interventions are affecting people with diabetes specifically. Finally, population studies are needed in many parts of the world beyond the U.S. and the U.K., where most of that work has been done thus far.

“Many of the most important unanswered questions lie in the potential indirect and long-term impact of the pandemic that require population-based studies,” Dr. Gregg said. “Most of our knowledge so far is from case series, which only assess patients from the time of hospitalization.”

Indeed, very little data are available for people with diabetes who get COVID-19 but are not hospitalized, so it’s not known whether they have a longer duration of illness or are at greater risk for “long COVID” than those without diabetes who experience COVID-19 at home.

“I have not seen published data on this yet, and it’s an important unanswered question,” Dr. Gregg said.  

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At 18 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 on people with diabetes have become clearer, but knowledge gaps remain, say epidemiologists.

“COVID-19 has had a devastating effect on the population with diabetes, and conversely, the high prevalence of diabetes and uncontrolled diabetes has exacerbated the problem,” Edward W. Gregg, PhD, Imperial College London, lead author of a new literature review, told this news organization.

“As it becomes clear that the COVID-19 pandemic will be with us in different forms for the foreseeable future, the emphasis for people with diabetes needs to be continued primary care, glycemic management, and vaccination to reduce the long-term impact of COVID-19 in this population,” he added.

In data, mostly from case series, the review shows that more than one-third of people hospitalized with COVID-19 have diabetes. It is published in the September issue of Diabetes Care.

People with diabetes are more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than those without diabetes, even after adjustment for age, sex, and other underlying conditions. Diabetes also accounts for 30%-40% of severe COVID-19 cases and deaths. Among those with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19, 21%-43% require intensive care, and the case fatality rate is about 25%.

In one of the few multivariate analyses that examined type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, conducted in the U.K., the odds of in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths, compared with people without diabetes, were almost three times higher (odds ratio, 2.9) for individuals with type 1 diabetes and almost twice as high (OR, 1.8) for those with type 2, after adjustment for comorbidities.

The causes of death appear to be a combination of factors specific to the SARS-CoV-2 infection and to diabetes-related factors, Dr. Gregg said in an interview.

“Much of the increased risk is due to the fact that people with diabetes have more comorbid factors, but there are many other mechanisms that appear to further increase risk, including the inflammatory and immune responses of people with diabetes, and hyperglycemia appears to have an exacerbating effect by itself.”
 

Elevated glucose is clear risk factor for COVID-19 severity

Elevated A1c was identified among several other overall predictors of poor COVID-19 outcomes, including obesity as well as comorbid kidney and cardiovascular disease.

High blood glucose levels at the time of admission in people with previously diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes emerged as a clear predictor of worse outcomes. For example, among 605 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in China, those with fasting plasma glucose 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL) and ≥7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) had odds ratios of poor outcomes within 28 days of 2.6 and 4.0 compared with FPG <6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL).

Population-based studies in the U.K. found that A1c levels measured months before COVID-19 hospitalization were associated with risk for intensive care unit admission and/or death, particularly among those with type 1 diabetes. Overall, the death rate was 36% higher for those with A1c of 9%-9.9% versus 6.5%-7%.

Despite the link between high A1c and death, there is as yet no clear evidence that normalizing blood glucose levels minimizes COVID-19 severity, Dr. Gregg said.

“There are data that suggest poor glycemic control is associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. This is indirect evidence that managing blood sugar will help, but more direct evidence is needed.”
 

Evidence gaps identified

Dr. Gregg and co-authors Marisa Sophiea, PhD, MSc, and Misghina Weldegiorgis, PhD, BSc, also from Imperial College London, identify three areas in which more data are needed.

First, more information is needed to determine whether exposure, infection, and hospitalization risks differ by diabetes status and how those factors affect outcomes. The same studies would also be important to identify how factors such as behavior, masking, and lockdown policies, risk factor control, and household/community environments affect risk in people with diabetes.

Second, studies are needed to better understand indirect effects of the pandemic, such as care and management factors. Some of these, such as the advent of telehealth, may turn out to be beneficial in the long run, they note.

Finally, the pandemic has “brought a wealth of natural experiments,” such as how vaccination programs and other interventions are affecting people with diabetes specifically. Finally, population studies are needed in many parts of the world beyond the U.S. and the U.K., where most of that work has been done thus far.

“Many of the most important unanswered questions lie in the potential indirect and long-term impact of the pandemic that require population-based studies,” Dr. Gregg said. “Most of our knowledge so far is from case series, which only assess patients from the time of hospitalization.”

Indeed, very little data are available for people with diabetes who get COVID-19 but are not hospitalized, so it’s not known whether they have a longer duration of illness or are at greater risk for “long COVID” than those without diabetes who experience COVID-19 at home.

“I have not seen published data on this yet, and it’s an important unanswered question,” Dr. Gregg said.  

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

At 18 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 on people with diabetes have become clearer, but knowledge gaps remain, say epidemiologists.

“COVID-19 has had a devastating effect on the population with diabetes, and conversely, the high prevalence of diabetes and uncontrolled diabetes has exacerbated the problem,” Edward W. Gregg, PhD, Imperial College London, lead author of a new literature review, told this news organization.

“As it becomes clear that the COVID-19 pandemic will be with us in different forms for the foreseeable future, the emphasis for people with diabetes needs to be continued primary care, glycemic management, and vaccination to reduce the long-term impact of COVID-19 in this population,” he added.

In data, mostly from case series, the review shows that more than one-third of people hospitalized with COVID-19 have diabetes. It is published in the September issue of Diabetes Care.

People with diabetes are more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than those without diabetes, even after adjustment for age, sex, and other underlying conditions. Diabetes also accounts for 30%-40% of severe COVID-19 cases and deaths. Among those with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19, 21%-43% require intensive care, and the case fatality rate is about 25%.

In one of the few multivariate analyses that examined type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, conducted in the U.K., the odds of in-hospital COVID-19–related deaths, compared with people without diabetes, were almost three times higher (odds ratio, 2.9) for individuals with type 1 diabetes and almost twice as high (OR, 1.8) for those with type 2, after adjustment for comorbidities.

The causes of death appear to be a combination of factors specific to the SARS-CoV-2 infection and to diabetes-related factors, Dr. Gregg said in an interview.

“Much of the increased risk is due to the fact that people with diabetes have more comorbid factors, but there are many other mechanisms that appear to further increase risk, including the inflammatory and immune responses of people with diabetes, and hyperglycemia appears to have an exacerbating effect by itself.”
 

Elevated glucose is clear risk factor for COVID-19 severity

Elevated A1c was identified among several other overall predictors of poor COVID-19 outcomes, including obesity as well as comorbid kidney and cardiovascular disease.

High blood glucose levels at the time of admission in people with previously diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes emerged as a clear predictor of worse outcomes. For example, among 605 people hospitalized with COVID-19 in China, those with fasting plasma glucose 6.1-6.9 mmol/L (110-125 mg/dL) and ≥7 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) had odds ratios of poor outcomes within 28 days of 2.6 and 4.0 compared with FPG <6.1 mmol/L (110 mg/dL).

Population-based studies in the U.K. found that A1c levels measured months before COVID-19 hospitalization were associated with risk for intensive care unit admission and/or death, particularly among those with type 1 diabetes. Overall, the death rate was 36% higher for those with A1c of 9%-9.9% versus 6.5%-7%.

Despite the link between high A1c and death, there is as yet no clear evidence that normalizing blood glucose levels minimizes COVID-19 severity, Dr. Gregg said.

“There are data that suggest poor glycemic control is associated with higher risk of poor outcomes. This is indirect evidence that managing blood sugar will help, but more direct evidence is needed.”
 

Evidence gaps identified

Dr. Gregg and co-authors Marisa Sophiea, PhD, MSc, and Misghina Weldegiorgis, PhD, BSc, also from Imperial College London, identify three areas in which more data are needed.

First, more information is needed to determine whether exposure, infection, and hospitalization risks differ by diabetes status and how those factors affect outcomes. The same studies would also be important to identify how factors such as behavior, masking, and lockdown policies, risk factor control, and household/community environments affect risk in people with diabetes.

Second, studies are needed to better understand indirect effects of the pandemic, such as care and management factors. Some of these, such as the advent of telehealth, may turn out to be beneficial in the long run, they note.

Finally, the pandemic has “brought a wealth of natural experiments,” such as how vaccination programs and other interventions are affecting people with diabetes specifically. Finally, population studies are needed in many parts of the world beyond the U.S. and the U.K., where most of that work has been done thus far.

“Many of the most important unanswered questions lie in the potential indirect and long-term impact of the pandemic that require population-based studies,” Dr. Gregg said. “Most of our knowledge so far is from case series, which only assess patients from the time of hospitalization.”

Indeed, very little data are available for people with diabetes who get COVID-19 but are not hospitalized, so it’s not known whether they have a longer duration of illness or are at greater risk for “long COVID” than those without diabetes who experience COVID-19 at home.

“I have not seen published data on this yet, and it’s an important unanswered question,” Dr. Gregg said.  

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

On July 9, Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) issued a statement of intent to purchase Vectura Group plc (Vectura), a provider of inhaled drug delivery solutions. According to the statement, the acquisition contributes to the PMI goal to move “beyond nicotine” by leveraging Vectura’s expertise in inhalation and aerosolization into adjacent areas.

Given PMI’s strong ties to tobacco, the acquisition raises concerns across the medical field. D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP, shares his thoughts on the prospective acquisition in the following guest feature.

August 2021: D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP

In 2018, Dr. Neeraj Desai and I published an editorial in the journal CHEST®. The title was, in part, “Is Big Tobacco Still Trying to Deceive the Public? ... ”¹ Before I give an opinion about the answer, I should give some background on events eliciting the editorial.

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued major tobacco companies (Philip Morris, USA; Altria; RJ Reynolds; and Lorillard) for being in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) in that they colluded for decades to mislead the public about the risks of smoking and risks of secondhand smoke, downplayed the addictiveness of nicotine, manipulated nicotine levels, marketed cigarettes as “low tar” or “light” when they knew these were no less hazardous than full-flavored cigarettes, purposefully targeted youth, and failed to produce a safer cigarette.

In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the D.C. District Court issued a1 700-page opinion finding the defendants had violated RICO. In her words,

• “[This case] is about an industry, and in particular these defendants, that survives, and profits, from selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to ... [an] immeasurable amount of human suffering ... they have consistently, repeatedly and with enormous skill and sophistication, denied these facts to the public, the Government, and to the public health community.”

“Defendants have marketed and sold their lethal products with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy ... exacted.”

• “Over the course of more than 50 years, defendants lied, misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including ... the young people they avidly sought as ‘replacement’ smokers.”

• “The evidence in this case clearly establishes that defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity ... ”

Since, under RICO, the government could not recover monetary damages but only require corrective actions going forward, the court ordered them to publish “corrective statements” (five different ones in total) in major publications and on television during prime time over the course of several months, as well as at the point of sale. (They are still appealing the point-of-sale display.)

Of course, the defendants appealed, but those appeals were largely thwarted until the (almost) final order in 2017, which then led to our editorial in 2018.

While this is a rather long introduction, I thought it necessary to depict the long-standing nature and behavioral patterns of deception, distortion, and destructive behavior of this industry – all designed to maintain their incredible profits - before trying to answer the question posed in our editorial.

Since all of the above, is there evidence the industry’s behaviors have changed? On the negative side, there is a recent study published on the Tobacco Free Kids website documenting the past and continued marketing to women and girls, with all the adverse consequences to women’s health.² The industry continues to produce and market cigarettes to everyone, including youths and focused markets such as Blacks and LGBTQ populations. However, they are quite aware that the future of combustible tobacco, the major source of their incredible profits, is threatened.

Currently, most of the profits from Philip Morris International (PMI), as well as the other major players, come from combustible products. But, the CEO of PMI has stated that he thinks combustible tobacco products will be gone in 10 to 15 years and PMI will be selling only smoke-free products by 2025. So, to preserve similar profits as their combustible products diminish, they have made major investments in vaping products, such as Juul, and development of other noncombustible tobacco products. But these are still addictive, and any reduction in health consequences is still being evaluated. A prime example of trying to change their image is Philip Morris’ Beyond Nicotine campaign. However, currently all the companies continue to produce combustible products in large amounts, both locally and internationally.

One way of assessing the vision of any company is to see where it is putting its money. Currently, all major tobacco companies are investing in marijuana companies. For example, Philip Morris has invested $2.4 billion into Cosmos, a Canadian marijuana company.

They also recently purchased Vectura, Fertin, and Kraft Foods. I know, it’s hard to see where Kraft Foods fits in here, but Vectura, an inhalational device manufacturer, and Fertin, which makes nicotine gum, as well as vehicles such as powders, pouches that dissolve in the mouth, and lozenges, certainly do fit in.

My take on these recent acquisitions is that tobacco companies realize combustibles are dying. However, they continue to develop and market nicotine in noncombustible forms. They are likely looking to move into marijuana, at least as an investment. It’s not a huge leap to consider the possibility that the purchase of Vectura will help develop delivery systems for nicotine, marijuana, and possibly medications. It’s unclear whether PMI intends to get further into inhaled pharmaceuticals.

Bottom line is that, as pulmonary physicians, we need to be aware of all developments in inhaled substances and delivery methods. On the upside, everything the industry is currently doing is apparently more transparent than they have been in the past. They are not yet, however, ceasing production and marketing of cigarettes.

It’s also important that we remind ourselves of their past actions because, personally, that past still bothers me, and I’m not quite ready to trust them. When it comes to “Big Tobacco,” it is appropriate that we always keep in mind the immortal words, often repeated in various forms, of Edgar Allen Poe, master teller of horror stories, “Believe nothing you hear and only half that you see.”³

References

1. McCaffree DR and Desai NR. Is big tobacco still trying to deceive the public? This is no time to rest on our laurels. Chest. 2018 May;153(5):1085-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.01.012.

2. A lifetime of damage: How Big Tobacco’s predatory marketing practices harms the health of women and girls. Tobacco-Free Kids. May 2021.

3. Quote Investigator. 2017 Jun 23. “The system of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether,” from Graham’s Magazine, November 1845.

On July 9, Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) issued a statement of intent to purchase Vectura Group plc (Vectura), a provider of inhaled drug delivery solutions. According to the statement, the acquisition contributes to the PMI goal to move “beyond nicotine” by leveraging Vectura’s expertise in inhalation and aerosolization into adjacent areas.

Given PMI’s strong ties to tobacco, the acquisition raises concerns across the medical field. D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP, shares his thoughts on the prospective acquisition in the following guest feature.

August 2021: D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP

In 2018, Dr. Neeraj Desai and I published an editorial in the journal CHEST®. The title was, in part, “Is Big Tobacco Still Trying to Deceive the Public? ... ”¹ Before I give an opinion about the answer, I should give some background on events eliciting the editorial.

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued major tobacco companies (Philip Morris, USA; Altria; RJ Reynolds; and Lorillard) for being in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) in that they colluded for decades to mislead the public about the risks of smoking and risks of secondhand smoke, downplayed the addictiveness of nicotine, manipulated nicotine levels, marketed cigarettes as “low tar” or “light” when they knew these were no less hazardous than full-flavored cigarettes, purposefully targeted youth, and failed to produce a safer cigarette.

In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the D.C. District Court issued a1 700-page opinion finding the defendants had violated RICO. In her words,

• “[This case] is about an industry, and in particular these defendants, that survives, and profits, from selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to ... [an] immeasurable amount of human suffering ... they have consistently, repeatedly and with enormous skill and sophistication, denied these facts to the public, the Government, and to the public health community.”

“Defendants have marketed and sold their lethal products with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy ... exacted.”

• “Over the course of more than 50 years, defendants lied, misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including ... the young people they avidly sought as ‘replacement’ smokers.”

• “The evidence in this case clearly establishes that defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity ... ”

Since, under RICO, the government could not recover monetary damages but only require corrective actions going forward, the court ordered them to publish “corrective statements” (five different ones in total) in major publications and on television during prime time over the course of several months, as well as at the point of sale. (They are still appealing the point-of-sale display.)

Of course, the defendants appealed, but those appeals were largely thwarted until the (almost) final order in 2017, which then led to our editorial in 2018.

While this is a rather long introduction, I thought it necessary to depict the long-standing nature and behavioral patterns of deception, distortion, and destructive behavior of this industry – all designed to maintain their incredible profits - before trying to answer the question posed in our editorial.

Since all of the above, is there evidence the industry’s behaviors have changed? On the negative side, there is a recent study published on the Tobacco Free Kids website documenting the past and continued marketing to women and girls, with all the adverse consequences to women’s health.² The industry continues to produce and market cigarettes to everyone, including youths and focused markets such as Blacks and LGBTQ populations. However, they are quite aware that the future of combustible tobacco, the major source of their incredible profits, is threatened.

Currently, most of the profits from Philip Morris International (PMI), as well as the other major players, come from combustible products. But, the CEO of PMI has stated that he thinks combustible tobacco products will be gone in 10 to 15 years and PMI will be selling only smoke-free products by 2025. So, to preserve similar profits as their combustible products diminish, they have made major investments in vaping products, such as Juul, and development of other noncombustible tobacco products. But these are still addictive, and any reduction in health consequences is still being evaluated. A prime example of trying to change their image is Philip Morris’ Beyond Nicotine campaign. However, currently all the companies continue to produce combustible products in large amounts, both locally and internationally.

One way of assessing the vision of any company is to see where it is putting its money. Currently, all major tobacco companies are investing in marijuana companies. For example, Philip Morris has invested $2.4 billion into Cosmos, a Canadian marijuana company.

They also recently purchased Vectura, Fertin, and Kraft Foods. I know, it’s hard to see where Kraft Foods fits in here, but Vectura, an inhalational device manufacturer, and Fertin, which makes nicotine gum, as well as vehicles such as powders, pouches that dissolve in the mouth, and lozenges, certainly do fit in.

My take on these recent acquisitions is that tobacco companies realize combustibles are dying. However, they continue to develop and market nicotine in noncombustible forms. They are likely looking to move into marijuana, at least as an investment. It’s not a huge leap to consider the possibility that the purchase of Vectura will help develop delivery systems for nicotine, marijuana, and possibly medications. It’s unclear whether PMI intends to get further into inhaled pharmaceuticals.

Bottom line is that, as pulmonary physicians, we need to be aware of all developments in inhaled substances and delivery methods. On the upside, everything the industry is currently doing is apparently more transparent than they have been in the past. They are not yet, however, ceasing production and marketing of cigarettes.

It’s also important that we remind ourselves of their past actions because, personally, that past still bothers me, and I’m not quite ready to trust them. When it comes to “Big Tobacco,” it is appropriate that we always keep in mind the immortal words, often repeated in various forms, of Edgar Allen Poe, master teller of horror stories, “Believe nothing you hear and only half that you see.”³

References

1. McCaffree DR and Desai NR. Is big tobacco still trying to deceive the public? This is no time to rest on our laurels. Chest. 2018 May;153(5):1085-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.01.012.

2. A lifetime of damage: How Big Tobacco’s predatory marketing practices harms the health of women and girls. Tobacco-Free Kids. May 2021.

3. Quote Investigator. 2017 Jun 23. “The system of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether,” from Graham’s Magazine, November 1845.

On July 9, Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) issued a statement of intent to purchase Vectura Group plc (Vectura), a provider of inhaled drug delivery solutions. According to the statement, the acquisition contributes to the PMI goal to move “beyond nicotine” by leveraging Vectura’s expertise in inhalation and aerosolization into adjacent areas.

Given PMI’s strong ties to tobacco, the acquisition raises concerns across the medical field. D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP, shares his thoughts on the prospective acquisition in the following guest feature.

August 2021: D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP

In 2018, Dr. Neeraj Desai and I published an editorial in the journal CHEST®. The title was, in part, “Is Big Tobacco Still Trying to Deceive the Public? ... ”¹ Before I give an opinion about the answer, I should give some background on events eliciting the editorial.

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued major tobacco companies (Philip Morris, USA; Altria; RJ Reynolds; and Lorillard) for being in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) in that they colluded for decades to mislead the public about the risks of smoking and risks of secondhand smoke, downplayed the addictiveness of nicotine, manipulated nicotine levels, marketed cigarettes as “low tar” or “light” when they knew these were no less hazardous than full-flavored cigarettes, purposefully targeted youth, and failed to produce a safer cigarette.

In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the D.C. District Court issued a1 700-page opinion finding the defendants had violated RICO. In her words,

• “[This case] is about an industry, and in particular these defendants, that survives, and profits, from selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to ... [an] immeasurable amount of human suffering ... they have consistently, repeatedly and with enormous skill and sophistication, denied these facts to the public, the Government, and to the public health community.”

“Defendants have marketed and sold their lethal products with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy ... exacted.”

• “Over the course of more than 50 years, defendants lied, misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including ... the young people they avidly sought as ‘replacement’ smokers.”

• “The evidence in this case clearly establishes that defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity ... ”

Since, under RICO, the government could not recover monetary damages but only require corrective actions going forward, the court ordered them to publish “corrective statements” (five different ones in total) in major publications and on television during prime time over the course of several months, as well as at the point of sale. (They are still appealing the point-of-sale display.)

Of course, the defendants appealed, but those appeals were largely thwarted until the (almost) final order in 2017, which then led to our editorial in 2018.

While this is a rather long introduction, I thought it necessary to depict the long-standing nature and behavioral patterns of deception, distortion, and destructive behavior of this industry – all designed to maintain their incredible profits - before trying to answer the question posed in our editorial.

Since all of the above, is there evidence the industry’s behaviors have changed? On the negative side, there is a recent study published on the Tobacco Free Kids website documenting the past and continued marketing to women and girls, with all the adverse consequences to women’s health.² The industry continues to produce and market cigarettes to everyone, including youths and focused markets such as Blacks and LGBTQ populations. However, they are quite aware that the future of combustible tobacco, the major source of their incredible profits, is threatened.

Currently, most of the profits from Philip Morris International (PMI), as well as the other major players, come from combustible products. But, the CEO of PMI has stated that he thinks combustible tobacco products will be gone in 10 to 15 years and PMI will be selling only smoke-free products by 2025. So, to preserve similar profits as their combustible products diminish, they have made major investments in vaping products, such as Juul, and development of other noncombustible tobacco products. But these are still addictive, and any reduction in health consequences is still being evaluated. A prime example of trying to change their image is Philip Morris’ Beyond Nicotine campaign. However, currently all the companies continue to produce combustible products in large amounts, both locally and internationally.

One way of assessing the vision of any company is to see where it is putting its money. Currently, all major tobacco companies are investing in marijuana companies. For example, Philip Morris has invested $2.4 billion into Cosmos, a Canadian marijuana company.

They also recently purchased Vectura, Fertin, and Kraft Foods. I know, it’s hard to see where Kraft Foods fits in here, but Vectura, an inhalational device manufacturer, and Fertin, which makes nicotine gum, as well as vehicles such as powders, pouches that dissolve in the mouth, and lozenges, certainly do fit in.

My take on these recent acquisitions is that tobacco companies realize combustibles are dying. However, they continue to develop and market nicotine in noncombustible forms. They are likely looking to move into marijuana, at least as an investment. It’s not a huge leap to consider the possibility that the purchase of Vectura will help develop delivery systems for nicotine, marijuana, and possibly medications. It’s unclear whether PMI intends to get further into inhaled pharmaceuticals.

Bottom line is that, as pulmonary physicians, we need to be aware of all developments in inhaled substances and delivery methods. On the upside, everything the industry is currently doing is apparently more transparent than they have been in the past. They are not yet, however, ceasing production and marketing of cigarettes.

It’s also important that we remind ourselves of their past actions because, personally, that past still bothers me, and I’m not quite ready to trust them. When it comes to “Big Tobacco,” it is appropriate that we always keep in mind the immortal words, often repeated in various forms, of Edgar Allen Poe, master teller of horror stories, “Believe nothing you hear and only half that you see.”³

References

1. McCaffree DR and Desai NR. Is big tobacco still trying to deceive the public? This is no time to rest on our laurels. Chest. 2018 May;153(5):1085-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.01.012.

2. A lifetime of damage: How Big Tobacco’s predatory marketing practices harms the health of women and girls. Tobacco-Free Kids. May 2021.

3. Quote Investigator. 2017 Jun 23. “The system of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether,” from Graham’s Magazine, November 1845.

Paul D. Stein, MD, Master FCCP

Past President (1992-1993) of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Paul D. Stein, Master FCCP, died on July 15, 2021, in Boynton Beach, Florida. His long career in cardiovascular research included monumental studies in pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension, and valvular heart disease.

Dr. Stein was regarded as a world expert on pulmonary embolism. His contributions to medicine include hundreds of published articles, five books, and countless lectures that have given the world its current understanding of heart and pulmonary diseases. Throughout his almost 50 years as a member of CHEST, as Past President, and as a Master Fellow, Dr. Stein served the College graciously in these and many other leadership roles. We extend heartfelt condolences to the Stein family.


Editor’s Note: In 2016, Dr. Stein provided CHEST Physician with a wonderful update on his current activities. You can find it in the November 2016 issue on page 54.

Paul D. Stein, MD, Master FCCP

Past President (1992-1993) of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Paul D. Stein, Master FCCP, died on July 15, 2021, in Boynton Beach, Florida. His long career in cardiovascular research included monumental studies in pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension, and valvular heart disease.

Dr. Stein was regarded as a world expert on pulmonary embolism. His contributions to medicine include hundreds of published articles, five books, and countless lectures that have given the world its current understanding of heart and pulmonary diseases. Throughout his almost 50 years as a member of CHEST, as Past President, and as a Master Fellow, Dr. Stein served the College graciously in these and many other leadership roles. We extend heartfelt condolences to the Stein family.


Editor’s Note: In 2016, Dr. Stein provided CHEST Physician with a wonderful update on his current activities. You can find it in the November 2016 issue on page 54.

Paul D. Stein, MD, Master FCCP

Past President (1992-1993) of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), Dr. Paul D. Stein, Master FCCP, died on July 15, 2021, in Boynton Beach, Florida. His long career in cardiovascular research included monumental studies in pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension, and valvular heart disease.

Dr. Stein was regarded as a world expert on pulmonary embolism. His contributions to medicine include hundreds of published articles, five books, and countless lectures that have given the world its current understanding of heart and pulmonary diseases. Throughout his almost 50 years as a member of CHEST, as Past President, and as a Master Fellow, Dr. Stein served the College graciously in these and many other leadership roles. We extend heartfelt condolences to the Stein family.


Editor’s Note: In 2016, Dr. Stein provided CHEST Physician with a wonderful update on his current activities. You can find it in the November 2016 issue on page 54.

The American Medical Association (AMA) conducted its June 2021 AMA Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates from June 11-16 virtually. Delegates from more than 170 societies (state societies, specialties, subspecialties, and uniformed services), comprised of nearly 700 physicians, residents, and medical students, gathered for the June 2021 AMA Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates (HOD) to consider a wide array of proposals.

CHEST is an active member, and through the HOD and Specialty and Service Society Caucus, CHEST has partnered with AMA and its sister societies to work with each other on important regulatory issues. Chest/Allergy Section Council (participants at this meeting were from the AAAAI, AAOA, AASM, ACAAI, ATS, CHEST, and SCCM) met before the proceedings of the House to discuss pending business. The meeting was hosted by the current CHEST/Allergy council chair Dr. Wesley Vander Ark (AMA Delegate AAOA) and Jami Lucas, CEO AAOA.
 

Brief updates on the Resolutions

Continuity of care of patients discharged from hospital settings (Adapted as a new policy)

The policy focuses on key issues around the continuity of care of patients. It includes protections of continuity of care for medical services and medications that are prescribed during patient hospitalizations, including when there are formulary or treatment coverage changes that have the potential to disrupt therapy following discharge.


Licensure and telehealth

The policy urges AMA to continue to support state efforts to expand physician licensure recognition across state lines in accordance with the standards and safeguards Coverage and Payment for Telemedicine. (New HOD Policy)

AMA to conduct or commission a study on the effect that telemedicine services have had on health insurance premiums, focusing on the differences between states that had telehealth payment parity provisions in effect prior to the pandemic vs those that did not, and report back at the 2021 Interim Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. (Directive to Take Action). CHEST has taken an active role in supporting this resolution through advocating for telemedicine services and reimbursement, as well as leading the CHEST Clinician Matching Network that pairs volunteer doctors with hospitals based on their need throughout the country.
 

Vaccines (Adopted as a new policy)

The policy urges AMA to advocate for the prohibition of the use of patient/customer information collected by retail pharmacies for COVID-19 vaccination scheduling and/or the vaccine administration process for the purpose of commercial marketing or future patient recruiting purposes, especially any targeting based on medical history condition. AMA opposes the sale of medical history data and contact information accumulated through the scheduling or provision of government-funded vaccinations to third parties for use in marketing or advertising.

Additionally, as it relates to vaccines, CHEST has joined a joint society statement supporting a vaccine mandate for all health care workers.
 

Optimizing match outcomes (Directive to Take Action)

The policy urges AMA to encourage the Association of American Medical Colleges, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, National Resident Matching Program, and other key stakeholders to jointly create a no-fee, easily accessible clearinghouse of reliable and valid advice and tools for residency program applicants seeking cost-effective methods for applying to and successfully matching into residency.

Ensuring adequate health care resources to address the long COVID crisis and call for increased funding and research for post-viral syndromes

The policy directs AMA to support the development of an ICD-10 code or family of codes to recognize Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (“PASC” or “Long COVID”) and other novel post-viral syndromes as distinct diagnoses. (New HOD Policy). Further, the policy directs AMA to advocate for legislation to provide funding for research, prevention, control, and treatment of post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19 and AMA provide physicians and medical students with accurate and current information on post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19; and further that AMA collaborate with other medical and educational entities to promote education among patients about post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19, to minimize the harm and disability current and future patients face. (Directive to Take Action)

Medical misinformation in the age of social media (Directive to Take Action)

AMA encourage social media organizations to further strengthen their content moderation policies related to medical misinformation, including, but not limited to, enhanced content monitoring, augmentation of recommendation engines focused on false information, and stronger integration of verified health information. AMA should encourage social media organizations to recognize the spread of medical misinformation over dissemination networks and collaborate with relevant stakeholders, and work with public health agencies to establish relationships with journalists and news agencies to enhance the public reach in disseminating accurate medical information.

Promoting equity in global vaccine distribution

AMA call for the cooperation of all governments and international agencies to share data, research, and resources for the production and distribution of medicines, vaccines, and personal protective equipment (Directive to Take Action); and be it further, AMA promote and support efforts to supply COVID vaccines to 21health care agencies in other parts of the world to be administered to individuals who can’t afford them. (Directive to Take Action). AMA urge the US government to provide all possible assistance, including surplus vaccines and vaccines that have not had emergency use authorization, to the citizens of India and other countries in a similar situation in this humanitarian crisis (New HOD Policy).

CHEST has taken an active role in promoting equity in health care and vaccine distribution in partnership with the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, including establishing a research grant program focused on this topic.
 

Addressing inflammatory and untruthful online ratings (Directive to Take Action)

AMA take action that would urge online review organizations to create internal mechanisms ensuring due process to physicians before the publication of negative reviews.

This is just a small sampling of the activities and more information, including reports from the various Councils, are available on the AMA website.

CHEST members interested in the AMA policy-making process may observe any AMA-HOD meeting or participate in the AMA’s democratic processes. Attendees will also be able to increase their knowledge and skills at no cost. They will also be able to connect with more than 1,500 peers and other meeting attendees from across the country. CHEST members with the time (there are two 5-day meetings each year) and interest are invited to apply to be an official CHEST delegate to the AMA. Contact Suzanne Sletto at [email protected] for details.

Delegates and alternate delegates to the House of Delegates (HOD) play a critical role in the democratic policy-making process that is the foundation of the AMA. Their role is multi-dimensional and includes:

• Advocacy for patients within the HOD to improve the health of the public and the health care system;
• Representation of the perspectives of their sponsoring organization to the HOD;
• Representation of their physician and medical student constituents in the decision-making process of the HOD;
• Representation of the AMA and its House of Delegates to member and nonmember physicians, medical associations, and others; and
• Solicitation of input from and provision of feedback to constituents.

Also, HOD delegates and alternate delegates are expected to foster a positive and useful two-way relationship between grassroots physicians and the CHEST leadership.
 

Dr. Desai is with the Chicago Chest Center and AMITA Health Suburban Lung Associates; and the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, University of Illinois at Chicago.

The American Medical Association (AMA) conducted its June 2021 AMA Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates from June 11-16 virtually. Delegates from more than 170 societies (state societies, specialties, subspecialties, and uniformed services), comprised of nearly 700 physicians, residents, and medical students, gathered for the June 2021 AMA Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates (HOD) to consider a wide array of proposals.

CHEST is an active member, and through the HOD and Specialty and Service Society Caucus, CHEST has partnered with AMA and its sister societies to work with each other on important regulatory issues. Chest/Allergy Section Council (participants at this meeting were from the AAAAI, AAOA, AASM, ACAAI, ATS, CHEST, and SCCM) met before the proceedings of the House to discuss pending business. The meeting was hosted by the current CHEST/Allergy council chair Dr. Wesley Vander Ark (AMA Delegate AAOA) and Jami Lucas, CEO AAOA.
 

Brief updates on the Resolutions

Continuity of care of patients discharged from hospital settings (Adapted as a new policy)

The policy focuses on key issues around the continuity of care of patients. It includes protections of continuity of care for medical services and medications that are prescribed during patient hospitalizations, including when there are formulary or treatment coverage changes that have the potential to disrupt therapy following discharge.


Licensure and telehealth

The policy urges AMA to continue to support state efforts to expand physician licensure recognition across state lines in accordance with the standards and safeguards Coverage and Payment for Telemedicine. (New HOD Policy)

AMA to conduct or commission a study on the effect that telemedicine services have had on health insurance premiums, focusing on the differences between states that had telehealth payment parity provisions in effect prior to the pandemic vs those that did not, and report back at the 2021 Interim Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. (Directive to Take Action). CHEST has taken an active role in supporting this resolution through advocating for telemedicine services and reimbursement, as well as leading the CHEST Clinician Matching Network that pairs volunteer doctors with hospitals based on their need throughout the country.
 

Vaccines (Adopted as a new policy)

The policy urges AMA to advocate for the prohibition of the use of patient/customer information collected by retail pharmacies for COVID-19 vaccination scheduling and/or the vaccine administration process for the purpose of commercial marketing or future patient recruiting purposes, especially any targeting based on medical history condition. AMA opposes the sale of medical history data and contact information accumulated through the scheduling or provision of government-funded vaccinations to third parties for use in marketing or advertising.

Additionally, as it relates to vaccines, CHEST has joined a joint society statement supporting a vaccine mandate for all health care workers.
 

Optimizing match outcomes (Directive to Take Action)

The policy urges AMA to encourage the Association of American Medical Colleges, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, National Resident Matching Program, and other key stakeholders to jointly create a no-fee, easily accessible clearinghouse of reliable and valid advice and tools for residency program applicants seeking cost-effective methods for applying to and successfully matching into residency.

Ensuring adequate health care resources to address the long COVID crisis and call for increased funding and research for post-viral syndromes

The policy directs AMA to support the development of an ICD-10 code or family of codes to recognize Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (“PASC” or “Long COVID”) and other novel post-viral syndromes as distinct diagnoses. (New HOD Policy). Further, the policy directs AMA to advocate for legislation to provide funding for research, prevention, control, and treatment of post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19 and AMA provide physicians and medical students with accurate and current information on post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19; and further that AMA collaborate with other medical and educational entities to promote education among patients about post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19, to minimize the harm and disability current and future patients face. (Directive to Take Action)

Medical misinformation in the age of social media (Directive to Take Action)

AMA encourage social media organizations to further strengthen their content moderation policies related to medical misinformation, including, but not limited to, enhanced content monitoring, augmentation of recommendation engines focused on false information, and stronger integration of verified health information. AMA should encourage social media organizations to recognize the spread of medical misinformation over dissemination networks and collaborate with relevant stakeholders, and work with public health agencies to establish relationships with journalists and news agencies to enhance the public reach in disseminating accurate medical information.

Promoting equity in global vaccine distribution

AMA call for the cooperation of all governments and international agencies to share data, research, and resources for the production and distribution of medicines, vaccines, and personal protective equipment (Directive to Take Action); and be it further, AMA promote and support efforts to supply COVID vaccines to 21health care agencies in other parts of the world to be administered to individuals who can’t afford them. (Directive to Take Action). AMA urge the US government to provide all possible assistance, including surplus vaccines and vaccines that have not had emergency use authorization, to the citizens of India and other countries in a similar situation in this humanitarian crisis (New HOD Policy).

CHEST has taken an active role in promoting equity in health care and vaccine distribution in partnership with the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, including establishing a research grant program focused on this topic.
 

Addressing inflammatory and untruthful online ratings (Directive to Take Action)

AMA take action that would urge online review organizations to create internal mechanisms ensuring due process to physicians before the publication of negative reviews.

This is just a small sampling of the activities and more information, including reports from the various Councils, are available on the AMA website.

CHEST members interested in the AMA policy-making process may observe any AMA-HOD meeting or participate in the AMA’s democratic processes. Attendees will also be able to increase their knowledge and skills at no cost. They will also be able to connect with more than 1,500 peers and other meeting attendees from across the country. CHEST members with the time (there are two 5-day meetings each year) and interest are invited to apply to be an official CHEST delegate to the AMA. Contact Suzanne Sletto at [email protected] for details.

Delegates and alternate delegates to the House of Delegates (HOD) play a critical role in the democratic policy-making process that is the foundation of the AMA. Their role is multi-dimensional and includes:

• Advocacy for patients within the HOD to improve the health of the public and the health care system;
• Representation of the perspectives of their sponsoring organization to the HOD;
• Representation of their physician and medical student constituents in the decision-making process of the HOD;
• Representation of the AMA and its House of Delegates to member and nonmember physicians, medical associations, and others; and
• Solicitation of input from and provision of feedback to constituents.

Also, HOD delegates and alternate delegates are expected to foster a positive and useful two-way relationship between grassroots physicians and the CHEST leadership.
 

Dr. Desai is with the Chicago Chest Center and AMITA Health Suburban Lung Associates; and the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, University of Illinois at Chicago.

The American Medical Association (AMA) conducted its June 2021 AMA Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates from June 11-16 virtually. Delegates from more than 170 societies (state societies, specialties, subspecialties, and uniformed services), comprised of nearly 700 physicians, residents, and medical students, gathered for the June 2021 AMA Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates (HOD) to consider a wide array of proposals.

CHEST is an active member, and through the HOD and Specialty and Service Society Caucus, CHEST has partnered with AMA and its sister societies to work with each other on important regulatory issues. Chest/Allergy Section Council (participants at this meeting were from the AAAAI, AAOA, AASM, ACAAI, ATS, CHEST, and SCCM) met before the proceedings of the House to discuss pending business. The meeting was hosted by the current CHEST/Allergy council chair Dr. Wesley Vander Ark (AMA Delegate AAOA) and Jami Lucas, CEO AAOA.
 

Brief updates on the Resolutions

Continuity of care of patients discharged from hospital settings (Adapted as a new policy)

The policy focuses on key issues around the continuity of care of patients. It includes protections of continuity of care for medical services and medications that are prescribed during patient hospitalizations, including when there are formulary or treatment coverage changes that have the potential to disrupt therapy following discharge.


Licensure and telehealth

The policy urges AMA to continue to support state efforts to expand physician licensure recognition across state lines in accordance with the standards and safeguards Coverage and Payment for Telemedicine. (New HOD Policy)

AMA to conduct or commission a study on the effect that telemedicine services have had on health insurance premiums, focusing on the differences between states that had telehealth payment parity provisions in effect prior to the pandemic vs those that did not, and report back at the 2021 Interim Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. (Directive to Take Action). CHEST has taken an active role in supporting this resolution through advocating for telemedicine services and reimbursement, as well as leading the CHEST Clinician Matching Network that pairs volunteer doctors with hospitals based on their need throughout the country.
 

Vaccines (Adopted as a new policy)

The policy urges AMA to advocate for the prohibition of the use of patient/customer information collected by retail pharmacies for COVID-19 vaccination scheduling and/or the vaccine administration process for the purpose of commercial marketing or future patient recruiting purposes, especially any targeting based on medical history condition. AMA opposes the sale of medical history data and contact information accumulated through the scheduling or provision of government-funded vaccinations to third parties for use in marketing or advertising.

Additionally, as it relates to vaccines, CHEST has joined a joint society statement supporting a vaccine mandate for all health care workers.
 

Optimizing match outcomes (Directive to Take Action)

The policy urges AMA to encourage the Association of American Medical Colleges, American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, National Resident Matching Program, and other key stakeholders to jointly create a no-fee, easily accessible clearinghouse of reliable and valid advice and tools for residency program applicants seeking cost-effective methods for applying to and successfully matching into residency.

Ensuring adequate health care resources to address the long COVID crisis and call for increased funding and research for post-viral syndromes

The policy directs AMA to support the development of an ICD-10 code or family of codes to recognize Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (“PASC” or “Long COVID”) and other novel post-viral syndromes as distinct diagnoses. (New HOD Policy). Further, the policy directs AMA to advocate for legislation to provide funding for research, prevention, control, and treatment of post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19 and AMA provide physicians and medical students with accurate and current information on post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19; and further that AMA collaborate with other medical and educational entities to promote education among patients about post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19, to minimize the harm and disability current and future patients face. (Directive to Take Action)

Medical misinformation in the age of social media (Directive to Take Action)

AMA encourage social media organizations to further strengthen their content moderation policies related to medical misinformation, including, but not limited to, enhanced content monitoring, augmentation of recommendation engines focused on false information, and stronger integration of verified health information. AMA should encourage social media organizations to recognize the spread of medical misinformation over dissemination networks and collaborate with relevant stakeholders, and work with public health agencies to establish relationships with journalists and news agencies to enhance the public reach in disseminating accurate medical information.

Promoting equity in global vaccine distribution

AMA call for the cooperation of all governments and international agencies to share data, research, and resources for the production and distribution of medicines, vaccines, and personal protective equipment (Directive to Take Action); and be it further, AMA promote and support efforts to supply COVID vaccines to 21health care agencies in other parts of the world to be administered to individuals who can’t afford them. (Directive to Take Action). AMA urge the US government to provide all possible assistance, including surplus vaccines and vaccines that have not had emergency use authorization, to the citizens of India and other countries in a similar situation in this humanitarian crisis (New HOD Policy).

CHEST has taken an active role in promoting equity in health care and vaccine distribution in partnership with the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, including establishing a research grant program focused on this topic.
 

Addressing inflammatory and untruthful online ratings (Directive to Take Action)

AMA take action that would urge online review organizations to create internal mechanisms ensuring due process to physicians before the publication of negative reviews.

This is just a small sampling of the activities and more information, including reports from the various Councils, are available on the AMA website.

CHEST members interested in the AMA policy-making process may observe any AMA-HOD meeting or participate in the AMA’s democratic processes. Attendees will also be able to increase their knowledge and skills at no cost. They will also be able to connect with more than 1,500 peers and other meeting attendees from across the country. CHEST members with the time (there are two 5-day meetings each year) and interest are invited to apply to be an official CHEST delegate to the AMA. Contact Suzanne Sletto at [email protected] for details.

Delegates and alternate delegates to the House of Delegates (HOD) play a critical role in the democratic policy-making process that is the foundation of the AMA. Their role is multi-dimensional and includes:

• Advocacy for patients within the HOD to improve the health of the public and the health care system;
• Representation of the perspectives of their sponsoring organization to the HOD;
• Representation of their physician and medical student constituents in the decision-making process of the HOD;
• Representation of the AMA and its House of Delegates to member and nonmember physicians, medical associations, and others; and
• Solicitation of input from and provision of feedback to constituents.

Also, HOD delegates and alternate delegates are expected to foster a positive and useful two-way relationship between grassroots physicians and the CHEST leadership.
 

Dr. Desai is with the Chicago Chest Center and AMITA Health Suburban Lung Associates; and the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep and Allergy, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Occupational and environmental health

Destruction in the air

Building collapse, such as that of the Surfside condominiums in Miami, Florida, results not only in tragic loss of life but also leads to devastating effects on lung health. Following the World Trade Center collapse, a massive particle dust cloud of up to 11,000 tons of PM_2.5 was dispersed, 90% of which was particles greater than 10 mcm (Rom et al. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2010 May;7[2]:142-5).

Fine particulate matter has been associated with multiple lung conditions. Those who arrive on site in the first 24 hours may have immediate changes in FEV₁ and FVC. Acute eosinophilic pneumonia has also been described in the initial aftermath (Rom et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(6):785).

Chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, may worsen with repeated exposure. One Swedish study demonstrated an increased incidence of chronic lower respiratory disease in cement and demolition workers compared with the general labor force (Purdue et al. Thorax. 2007 Jan;62[1]:51-6). Clean-up sites may contain a variety of materials associated with occupational lung diseases, like chrysolite asbestos, silica, and heavy metals.

Prevention remains key. In the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires all construction and demolition sites to have a dust control plan. Primary prevention includes the use of N-95 masks and watering sites. N-95 masks protect against particulate matter PM_2.5 and smaller (Zhou et al. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Mar;10[3]:2059-69. Watering sites, while useful, can be challenging depending on the size and temperature of the area. Workers in high-risk occupations should have prior screening with pulmonary function testing. After an exposure, it is recommended pulmonary function testing be repeated, with close interval monitoring.

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.

Tyler Church, DO

Jason Unger, MD

Fellow-in-training Members

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD

Steering Committee Member
 

Palliative care and end of life

Empathy in the ICU

The importance of empathetic patient care has never seemed so significant with patients isolated from the standard support systems in a pandemic that has pushed health care to its limits. While empathy can clearly impact patient outcomes (Rakel DP et al. Fam Med. 2009;41[7]:494-501), the practicality of delivering empathic care is less well defined. Into this void step Dr. Jessica Bunin and colleagues (Bunin J et al. J Crit Care. 2021;29;65:156-63), who present a scoping review of the limited literature in an effort to address gaps in the practice of empathy. Perhaps unsurprising but most critically, the authors found that far from being a dichotomous construct, empathy is a “complex phenomenon” that exists on a continuum. It is inconsistently defined in the existing literature, with the inclusion of cognitive, affective, and somatic processes variable. Equally important, they identified that practicing empathy carries risk in addition to its beneficial applications for both patients and intensivists.

Far from being easily identifiable, measured, and taught, this concept of empathy as a nuanced and contextually charged skill that requires practice and reflection aligns it with other skills and tools used in the care of our critically ill patients. This group has suggested that a clear definition of empathy, transparent discussion of the risks and benefits of using empathy, attention to developing environments that minimize barriers and facilitate the practice of empathy in clinical care, and the growth of educational practice to promote attention to self-care in the use of empathy will overall benefit both patient and physician well-being. At the very least, we need to allow ourselves grace to fail and learn as we strive to provide empathic care for our patients and ourselves.

Laura Johnson, MD, FCCP

NetWork Ex-Officio
 

Respiratory care network

National campaign to address respiratory therapist shortage

As our population grows, hospitals and physician practices face a rapidly growing need for more specialized, high-quality respiratory care; but the numbers of respiratory therapists are not keeping pace. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Respiratory Therapists).

To inspire a new generation of respiratory therapists and promote this lifesaving profession, the American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC), the Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care (CoARC), and The National Board for Respiratory Care (NBRC) are pursuing a multiyear, national campaign called The World Needs More RTs. This campaign has three primary goals:

1. Enhance the value of the respiratory care profession.

2. Recruit and retain more respiratory therapists.

3. Shape future leadership in respiratory care.

There are factors behind the current and impending future inadequate numbers of respiratory therapists:

• Decrease in undergraduate enrollment.
• Increase in retirements.
• Escalation of burnout in health care.

This campaign aims to address these factors, enhance interest in the profession, and prevent further decline in RT numbers.

Respiratory therapists make an invaluable impact on patient care, and simply put, the world needs more RTs. More RTs are needed to provide lifesaving care in the critical care units, emergency departments, and clinics (Shaw RC, Benavente JL. AARC Human Resources Survey of Acute Care Hospital Employers. NBRC 2020). More RTs are needed to educate the next RT generation (Shaw RC, Benavente JL. AARC Human Resources Survey of Education Programs. NBRC 2020). To see how you can champion the campaign, visit MoreRTs.com.

Lori Tinkler, MBA

CEO, NBRC

Steering Committee Member

De De Gardner, DrPH, RRT, FCCP

Vice-Chair
 

Sleep disorders

COPD and sleep-disordered breathing: Updates and steps forward

The presence of sleep breathing disorders in individuals with COPD, in the form of COPD and OSA overlap syndrome (OVS) or chronic hypercarbic respiratory failure (CHRF), portend poor outcomes when untreated. Treatment of OVS and CHRF are among few interventions that positively impact mortality, readmission rates, and quality of life in patients with COPD.

Higher mortality and readmission rates are seen in those admitted with COPD exacerbations who have OVS compared with COPD alone. Initiation and adherence to PAP therapy decreases mortality and COPD-related hospitalizations (Ioachimescu OC et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[2]:267-77; Singh G et al. Sleep Breath. 2019;23[1]:193).

In CHRF, initiation of high intensity noninvasive ventilation (NIV) at least 2 weeks after resolution of acute respiratory failure reduces mortality and prolongs time to readmission (Murphy PB et al. JAMA. 2017;317[21]:2177-86; Kohnlein T et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2:698-705). Initiating home NIV in individuals with acute hypercarbic respiratory failure does not improve readmission rates or time to readmission (Struik FM et al. Thorax. 2014;69:826-34). The new ATS guidelines, therefore, recommend NIV initiation for stable CHRF in COPD, screening for OVS prior to NIV initiation, and targeting PaCO₂ normalization (Macrea M et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87).

Identification and treatment of OVS and CHRF pose unique challenges for clinicians, particularly when navigating current testing and reimbursement guidelines. A multisociety Technical Expert Panel, including members of CHEST, has recently published its recommendations for changes to CMS national coverage determinations for NIV to take the next steps forward (Gay PC et al. Chest. 2021;S0012-3692[21]01481-1).

Megan Lowery, MD

Sreelatha Naik, MD

Steering Committee Members
 

Thoracic oncology

CHEST releases its newest edition of the tobacco treatment toolkit

Tobacco remains the greatest single cause of morbidity and mortality. Left unaddressed, tobacco is projected to kill 1 billion people worldwide this century. Despite this, only 5% of all tobacco-dependent patients in the United States receive both a medication and even minimal counseling for their addiction.

Tobacco dependence is a severe chronic life-threatening disease. It is with this focus that CHEST released its latest iteration of the Tobacco Dependence Treatment Toolkit. This edition focuses on treating tobacco addiction as a chronic disease, titrating all seven FDA-approved medications toward tobacco abstinence, and medical practice/hospital reimbursement.

The CHEST toolkit is divided into eight sections: Motivational Interviewing, Testing/Diagnostics, Treatment Basics (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), Treatment Pearls, Clinical Vignettes and Studies, Special Populations, Treatment for e-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products, and Insurance Billing and Telehealth.

Special attention is given to tobacco addiction diagnostics and using these findings to treat the chronic disease of tobacco addiction just like any other chronic disease by aggressively and successfully titrating FDA-approved medications in various permutations and combinations, as needed. The therapeutic goal is assisting the patient to feel normal, minimizing withdrawal throughout the process, so that tobacco abstinence can ultimately be obtained and maintained.

Clinicians and medical centers can receive insurance reimbursement for these diagnostics and associated interventions. This includes both in-office procedures and via telehealth. The CHEST toolkit discusses both in-depth.

A new unique associated feature is our Clinician Interactive Toolkit. This multimedia interactive platform reviews clinician interactions with a tobacco-dependent patient via avatars and can be found here: Clinician Interactive Toolkit.

https://foundation.chestnet.org/lung-health-a-z/smoking-and-tobacco-use/?Item=For-Clinicians

The American College of Chest Physicians’ Tobacco Treatment Toolkit can be downloaded here.

The American College of Chest Physicians’ Tobacco Treatment Toolkit project also included the development of a new video game for tobacco users. Smoke Out: Tobacco Pirates is available for download for free to all at the Apple App Store for iPhones and iPads, and at Google Play (play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gforcelearning.smokeout&hl=en_US&gl=US). The game is fun, the theme is immersive, and the educational content is specifically focused on tobacco users, although clinicians will enjoy it too.

Matthew Bars, MS

Steering Committee Member

Occupational and environmental health

Destruction in the air

Building collapse, such as that of the Surfside condominiums in Miami, Florida, results not only in tragic loss of life but also leads to devastating effects on lung health. Following the World Trade Center collapse, a massive particle dust cloud of up to 11,000 tons of PM_2.5 was dispersed, 90% of which was particles greater than 10 mcm (Rom et al. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2010 May;7[2]:142-5).

Fine particulate matter has been associated with multiple lung conditions. Those who arrive on site in the first 24 hours may have immediate changes in FEV₁ and FVC. Acute eosinophilic pneumonia has also been described in the initial aftermath (Rom et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(6):785).

Chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, may worsen with repeated exposure. One Swedish study demonstrated an increased incidence of chronic lower respiratory disease in cement and demolition workers compared with the general labor force (Purdue et al. Thorax. 2007 Jan;62[1]:51-6). Clean-up sites may contain a variety of materials associated with occupational lung diseases, like chrysolite asbestos, silica, and heavy metals.

Prevention remains key. In the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires all construction and demolition sites to have a dust control plan. Primary prevention includes the use of N-95 masks and watering sites. N-95 masks protect against particulate matter PM_2.5 and smaller (Zhou et al. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Mar;10[3]:2059-69. Watering sites, while useful, can be challenging depending on the size and temperature of the area. Workers in high-risk occupations should have prior screening with pulmonary function testing. After an exposure, it is recommended pulmonary function testing be repeated, with close interval monitoring.

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.

Tyler Church, DO

Jason Unger, MD

Fellow-in-training Members

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD

Steering Committee Member
 

Palliative care and end of life

Empathy in the ICU

The importance of empathetic patient care has never seemed so significant with patients isolated from the standard support systems in a pandemic that has pushed health care to its limits. While empathy can clearly impact patient outcomes (Rakel DP et al. Fam Med. 2009;41[7]:494-501), the practicality of delivering empathic care is less well defined. Into this void step Dr. Jessica Bunin and colleagues (Bunin J et al. J Crit Care. 2021;29;65:156-63), who present a scoping review of the limited literature in an effort to address gaps in the practice of empathy. Perhaps unsurprising but most critically, the authors found that far from being a dichotomous construct, empathy is a “complex phenomenon” that exists on a continuum. It is inconsistently defined in the existing literature, with the inclusion of cognitive, affective, and somatic processes variable. Equally important, they identified that practicing empathy carries risk in addition to its beneficial applications for both patients and intensivists.

Far from being easily identifiable, measured, and taught, this concept of empathy as a nuanced and contextually charged skill that requires practice and reflection aligns it with other skills and tools used in the care of our critically ill patients. This group has suggested that a clear definition of empathy, transparent discussion of the risks and benefits of using empathy, attention to developing environments that minimize barriers and facilitate the practice of empathy in clinical care, and the growth of educational practice to promote attention to self-care in the use of empathy will overall benefit both patient and physician well-being. At the very least, we need to allow ourselves grace to fail and learn as we strive to provide empathic care for our patients and ourselves.

Laura Johnson, MD, FCCP

NetWork Ex-Officio
 

Respiratory care network

National campaign to address respiratory therapist shortage

As our population grows, hospitals and physician practices face a rapidly growing need for more specialized, high-quality respiratory care; but the numbers of respiratory therapists are not keeping pace. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Respiratory Therapists).

To inspire a new generation of respiratory therapists and promote this lifesaving profession, the American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC), the Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care (CoARC), and The National Board for Respiratory Care (NBRC) are pursuing a multiyear, national campaign called The World Needs More RTs. This campaign has three primary goals:

1. Enhance the value of the respiratory care profession.

2. Recruit and retain more respiratory therapists.

3. Shape future leadership in respiratory care.

There are factors behind the current and impending future inadequate numbers of respiratory therapists:

• Decrease in undergraduate enrollment.
• Increase in retirements.
• Escalation of burnout in health care.

This campaign aims to address these factors, enhance interest in the profession, and prevent further decline in RT numbers.

Respiratory therapists make an invaluable impact on patient care, and simply put, the world needs more RTs. More RTs are needed to provide lifesaving care in the critical care units, emergency departments, and clinics (Shaw RC, Benavente JL. AARC Human Resources Survey of Acute Care Hospital Employers. NBRC 2020). More RTs are needed to educate the next RT generation (Shaw RC, Benavente JL. AARC Human Resources Survey of Education Programs. NBRC 2020). To see how you can champion the campaign, visit MoreRTs.com.

Lori Tinkler, MBA

CEO, NBRC

Steering Committee Member

De De Gardner, DrPH, RRT, FCCP

Vice-Chair
 

Sleep disorders

COPD and sleep-disordered breathing: Updates and steps forward

The presence of sleep breathing disorders in individuals with COPD, in the form of COPD and OSA overlap syndrome (OVS) or chronic hypercarbic respiratory failure (CHRF), portend poor outcomes when untreated. Treatment of OVS and CHRF are among few interventions that positively impact mortality, readmission rates, and quality of life in patients with COPD.

Higher mortality and readmission rates are seen in those admitted with COPD exacerbations who have OVS compared with COPD alone. Initiation and adherence to PAP therapy decreases mortality and COPD-related hospitalizations (Ioachimescu OC et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[2]:267-77; Singh G et al. Sleep Breath. 2019;23[1]:193).

In CHRF, initiation of high intensity noninvasive ventilation (NIV) at least 2 weeks after resolution of acute respiratory failure reduces mortality and prolongs time to readmission (Murphy PB et al. JAMA. 2017;317[21]:2177-86; Kohnlein T et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2:698-705). Initiating home NIV in individuals with acute hypercarbic respiratory failure does not improve readmission rates or time to readmission (Struik FM et al. Thorax. 2014;69:826-34). The new ATS guidelines, therefore, recommend NIV initiation for stable CHRF in COPD, screening for OVS prior to NIV initiation, and targeting PaCO₂ normalization (Macrea M et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87).

Identification and treatment of OVS and CHRF pose unique challenges for clinicians, particularly when navigating current testing and reimbursement guidelines. A multisociety Technical Expert Panel, including members of CHEST, has recently published its recommendations for changes to CMS national coverage determinations for NIV to take the next steps forward (Gay PC et al. Chest. 2021;S0012-3692[21]01481-1).

Megan Lowery, MD

Sreelatha Naik, MD

Steering Committee Members
 

Thoracic oncology

CHEST releases its newest edition of the tobacco treatment toolkit

Tobacco remains the greatest single cause of morbidity and mortality. Left unaddressed, tobacco is projected to kill 1 billion people worldwide this century. Despite this, only 5% of all tobacco-dependent patients in the United States receive both a medication and even minimal counseling for their addiction.

Tobacco dependence is a severe chronic life-threatening disease. It is with this focus that CHEST released its latest iteration of the Tobacco Dependence Treatment Toolkit. This edition focuses on treating tobacco addiction as a chronic disease, titrating all seven FDA-approved medications toward tobacco abstinence, and medical practice/hospital reimbursement.

The CHEST toolkit is divided into eight sections: Motivational Interviewing, Testing/Diagnostics, Treatment Basics (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), Treatment Pearls, Clinical Vignettes and Studies, Special Populations, Treatment for e-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products, and Insurance Billing and Telehealth.

Special attention is given to tobacco addiction diagnostics and using these findings to treat the chronic disease of tobacco addiction just like any other chronic disease by aggressively and successfully titrating FDA-approved medications in various permutations and combinations, as needed. The therapeutic goal is assisting the patient to feel normal, minimizing withdrawal throughout the process, so that tobacco abstinence can ultimately be obtained and maintained.

Clinicians and medical centers can receive insurance reimbursement for these diagnostics and associated interventions. This includes both in-office procedures and via telehealth. The CHEST toolkit discusses both in-depth.

A new unique associated feature is our Clinician Interactive Toolkit. This multimedia interactive platform reviews clinician interactions with a tobacco-dependent patient via avatars and can be found here: Clinician Interactive Toolkit.

https://foundation.chestnet.org/lung-health-a-z/smoking-and-tobacco-use/?Item=For-Clinicians

The American College of Chest Physicians’ Tobacco Treatment Toolkit can be downloaded here.

The American College of Chest Physicians’ Tobacco Treatment Toolkit project also included the development of a new video game for tobacco users. Smoke Out: Tobacco Pirates is available for download for free to all at the Apple App Store for iPhones and iPads, and at Google Play (play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gforcelearning.smokeout&hl=en_US&gl=US). The game is fun, the theme is immersive, and the educational content is specifically focused on tobacco users, although clinicians will enjoy it too.

Matthew Bars, MS

Steering Committee Member

Occupational and environmental health

Destruction in the air

Building collapse, such as that of the Surfside condominiums in Miami, Florida, results not only in tragic loss of life but also leads to devastating effects on lung health. Following the World Trade Center collapse, a massive particle dust cloud of up to 11,000 tons of PM_2.5 was dispersed, 90% of which was particles greater than 10 mcm (Rom et al. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2010 May;7[2]:142-5).

Fine particulate matter has been associated with multiple lung conditions. Those who arrive on site in the first 24 hours may have immediate changes in FEV₁ and FVC. Acute eosinophilic pneumonia has also been described in the initial aftermath (Rom et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(6):785).

Chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, may worsen with repeated exposure. One Swedish study demonstrated an increased incidence of chronic lower respiratory disease in cement and demolition workers compared with the general labor force (Purdue et al. Thorax. 2007 Jan;62[1]:51-6). Clean-up sites may contain a variety of materials associated with occupational lung diseases, like chrysolite asbestos, silica, and heavy metals.

Prevention remains key. In the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires all construction and demolition sites to have a dust control plan. Primary prevention includes the use of N-95 masks and watering sites. N-95 masks protect against particulate matter PM_2.5 and smaller (Zhou et al. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Mar;10[3]:2059-69. Watering sites, while useful, can be challenging depending on the size and temperature of the area. Workers in high-risk occupations should have prior screening with pulmonary function testing. After an exposure, it is recommended pulmonary function testing be repeated, with close interval monitoring.

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.

Tyler Church, DO

Jason Unger, MD

Fellow-in-training Members

Bathmapriya Balakrishnan, MD

Steering Committee Member
 

Palliative care and end of life

Empathy in the ICU

The importance of empathetic patient care has never seemed so significant with patients isolated from the standard support systems in a pandemic that has pushed health care to its limits. While empathy can clearly impact patient outcomes (Rakel DP et al. Fam Med. 2009;41[7]:494-501), the practicality of delivering empathic care is less well defined. Into this void step Dr. Jessica Bunin and colleagues (Bunin J et al. J Crit Care. 2021;29;65:156-63), who present a scoping review of the limited literature in an effort to address gaps in the practice of empathy. Perhaps unsurprising but most critically, the authors found that far from being a dichotomous construct, empathy is a “complex phenomenon” that exists on a continuum. It is inconsistently defined in the existing literature, with the inclusion of cognitive, affective, and somatic processes variable. Equally important, they identified that practicing empathy carries risk in addition to its beneficial applications for both patients and intensivists.

Far from being easily identifiable, measured, and taught, this concept of empathy as a nuanced and contextually charged skill that requires practice and reflection aligns it with other skills and tools used in the care of our critically ill patients. This group has suggested that a clear definition of empathy, transparent discussion of the risks and benefits of using empathy, attention to developing environments that minimize barriers and facilitate the practice of empathy in clinical care, and the growth of educational practice to promote attention to self-care in the use of empathy will overall benefit both patient and physician well-being. At the very least, we need to allow ourselves grace to fail and learn as we strive to provide empathic care for our patients and ourselves.

Laura Johnson, MD, FCCP

NetWork Ex-Officio
 

Respiratory care network

National campaign to address respiratory therapist shortage

As our population grows, hospitals and physician practices face a rapidly growing need for more specialized, high-quality respiratory care; but the numbers of respiratory therapists are not keeping pace. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Respiratory Therapists).

To inspire a new generation of respiratory therapists and promote this lifesaving profession, the American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC), the Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care (CoARC), and The National Board for Respiratory Care (NBRC) are pursuing a multiyear, national campaign called The World Needs More RTs. This campaign has three primary goals:

1. Enhance the value of the respiratory care profession.

2. Recruit and retain more respiratory therapists.

3. Shape future leadership in respiratory care.

There are factors behind the current and impending future inadequate numbers of respiratory therapists:

• Decrease in undergraduate enrollment.
• Increase in retirements.
• Escalation of burnout in health care.

This campaign aims to address these factors, enhance interest in the profession, and prevent further decline in RT numbers.

Respiratory therapists make an invaluable impact on patient care, and simply put, the world needs more RTs. More RTs are needed to provide lifesaving care in the critical care units, emergency departments, and clinics (Shaw RC, Benavente JL. AARC Human Resources Survey of Acute Care Hospital Employers. NBRC 2020). More RTs are needed to educate the next RT generation (Shaw RC, Benavente JL. AARC Human Resources Survey of Education Programs. NBRC 2020). To see how you can champion the campaign, visit MoreRTs.com.

Lori Tinkler, MBA

CEO, NBRC

Steering Committee Member

De De Gardner, DrPH, RRT, FCCP

Vice-Chair
 

Sleep disorders

COPD and sleep-disordered breathing: Updates and steps forward

The presence of sleep breathing disorders in individuals with COPD, in the form of COPD and OSA overlap syndrome (OVS) or chronic hypercarbic respiratory failure (CHRF), portend poor outcomes when untreated. Treatment of OVS and CHRF are among few interventions that positively impact mortality, readmission rates, and quality of life in patients with COPD.

Higher mortality and readmission rates are seen in those admitted with COPD exacerbations who have OVS compared with COPD alone. Initiation and adherence to PAP therapy decreases mortality and COPD-related hospitalizations (Ioachimescu OC et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[2]:267-77; Singh G et al. Sleep Breath. 2019;23[1]:193).

In CHRF, initiation of high intensity noninvasive ventilation (NIV) at least 2 weeks after resolution of acute respiratory failure reduces mortality and prolongs time to readmission (Murphy PB et al. JAMA. 2017;317[21]:2177-86; Kohnlein T et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2:698-705). Initiating home NIV in individuals with acute hypercarbic respiratory failure does not improve readmission rates or time to readmission (Struik FM et al. Thorax. 2014;69:826-34). The new ATS guidelines, therefore, recommend NIV initiation for stable CHRF in COPD, screening for OVS prior to NIV initiation, and targeting PaCO₂ normalization (Macrea M et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87).

Identification and treatment of OVS and CHRF pose unique challenges for clinicians, particularly when navigating current testing and reimbursement guidelines. A multisociety Technical Expert Panel, including members of CHEST, has recently published its recommendations for changes to CMS national coverage determinations for NIV to take the next steps forward (Gay PC et al. Chest. 2021;S0012-3692[21]01481-1).

Megan Lowery, MD

Sreelatha Naik, MD

Steering Committee Members
 

Thoracic oncology

CHEST releases its newest edition of the tobacco treatment toolkit

Tobacco remains the greatest single cause of morbidity and mortality. Left unaddressed, tobacco is projected to kill 1 billion people worldwide this century. Despite this, only 5% of all tobacco-dependent patients in the United States receive both a medication and even minimal counseling for their addiction.

Tobacco dependence is a severe chronic life-threatening disease. It is with this focus that CHEST released its latest iteration of the Tobacco Dependence Treatment Toolkit. This edition focuses on treating tobacco addiction as a chronic disease, titrating all seven FDA-approved medications toward tobacco abstinence, and medical practice/hospital reimbursement.

The CHEST toolkit is divided into eight sections: Motivational Interviewing, Testing/Diagnostics, Treatment Basics (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), Treatment Pearls, Clinical Vignettes and Studies, Special Populations, Treatment for e-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products, and Insurance Billing and Telehealth.

Special attention is given to tobacco addiction diagnostics and using these findings to treat the chronic disease of tobacco addiction just like any other chronic disease by aggressively and successfully titrating FDA-approved medications in various permutations and combinations, as needed. The therapeutic goal is assisting the patient to feel normal, minimizing withdrawal throughout the process, so that tobacco abstinence can ultimately be obtained and maintained.

Clinicians and medical centers can receive insurance reimbursement for these diagnostics and associated interventions. This includes both in-office procedures and via telehealth. The CHEST toolkit discusses both in-depth.

A new unique associated feature is our Clinician Interactive Toolkit. This multimedia interactive platform reviews clinician interactions with a tobacco-dependent patient via avatars and can be found here: Clinician Interactive Toolkit.

https://foundation.chestnet.org/lung-health-a-z/smoking-and-tobacco-use/?Item=For-Clinicians

The American College of Chest Physicians’ Tobacco Treatment Toolkit can be downloaded here.

The American College of Chest Physicians’ Tobacco Treatment Toolkit project also included the development of a new video game for tobacco users. Smoke Out: Tobacco Pirates is available for download for free to all at the Apple App Store for iPhones and iPads, and at Google Play (play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gforcelearning.smokeout&hl=en_US&gl=US). The game is fun, the theme is immersive, and the educational content is specifically focused on tobacco users, although clinicians will enjoy it too.

Matthew Bars, MS

Steering Committee Member

Point: E-cigarettes for harm reduction in tobacco use disorder: Pro. By Dr. C. Bates.



Counterpoint: E-cigarettes for harm reduction in tobacco use disorder: Con. By Dr. H. Kathuria, et al.



Eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma: an expert consensus framework to characterize phenotypes in a global real-life severe asthma cohort. By Dr. L. G. Heaney, et al.Symptoms of mental health disorders in critical care clinicians facing the COVID-19 second wave: A cross-sectional study. By Dr. E. Azoulay, et al.Tobacco smoking and risk for pulmonary fibrosis: A prospective cohort study in UK Biobank.By Dr. V. Bellow, et al.Sleep in the hospitalized child: A contemporary review. By Dr. J. Berger, et al.Avoid the Trap: Non-expanding Lung. By Dr. D. Gillett, et al.Resuscitation a la Carte: Ethical concerns about the practice and theory of partial codes. By Dr. B. Gremmels, et al.

Point: E-cigarettes for harm reduction in tobacco use disorder: Pro. By Dr. C. Bates.



Counterpoint: E-cigarettes for harm reduction in tobacco use disorder: Con. By Dr. H. Kathuria, et al.



Eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma: an expert consensus framework to characterize phenotypes in a global real-life severe asthma cohort. By Dr. L. G. Heaney, et al.Symptoms of mental health disorders in critical care clinicians facing the COVID-19 second wave: A cross-sectional study. By Dr. E. Azoulay, et al.Tobacco smoking and risk for pulmonary fibrosis: A prospective cohort study in UK Biobank.By Dr. V. Bellow, et al.Sleep in the hospitalized child: A contemporary review. By Dr. J. Berger, et al.Avoid the Trap: Non-expanding Lung. By Dr. D. Gillett, et al.Resuscitation a la Carte: Ethical concerns about the practice and theory of partial codes. By Dr. B. Gremmels, et al.

Point: E-cigarettes for harm reduction in tobacco use disorder: Pro. By Dr. C. Bates.



Counterpoint: E-cigarettes for harm reduction in tobacco use disorder: Con. By Dr. H. Kathuria, et al.



Eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic asthma: an expert consensus framework to characterize phenotypes in a global real-life severe asthma cohort. By Dr. L. G. Heaney, et al.Symptoms of mental health disorders in critical care clinicians facing the COVID-19 second wave: A cross-sectional study. By Dr. E. Azoulay, et al.Tobacco smoking and risk for pulmonary fibrosis: A prospective cohort study in UK Biobank.By Dr. V. Bellow, et al.Sleep in the hospitalized child: A contemporary review. By Dr. J. Berger, et al.Avoid the Trap: Non-expanding Lung. By Dr. D. Gillett, et al.Resuscitation a la Carte: Ethical concerns about the practice and theory of partial codes. By Dr. B. Gremmels, et al.