CHEST Physician

Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.

Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.

“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
 

Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off

However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”

Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.

For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.

They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.

Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
 

The financial gap has worsened

To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.

The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.

The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.

“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.

Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.

The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
 

‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’

Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.

“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”

But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.

Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.

“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”

A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.

The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.

The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.

Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.

“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
 

Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off

However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”

Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.

For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.

They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.

Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
 

The financial gap has worsened

To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.

The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.

The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.

“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.

Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.

The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
 

‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’

Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.

“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”

But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.

Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.

“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”

A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.

The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.

The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.

Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.

“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
 

Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off

However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”

Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.

For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.

They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.

Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
 

The financial gap has worsened

To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.

The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.

The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.

“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.

Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.

The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
 

‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’

Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.

“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”

But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.

Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.

“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”

A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.

The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.

The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Veterans who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) are significantly more likely to develop insomnia and other sleep problems years later compared to their counterparts who have not suffered a brain injury, a new study shows.

Results of a large longitudinal study show that those with TBI were about 40% more likely to develop insomnia, sleep apnea, excessive daytime sleepiness, or another sleep disorder in later years, after adjusting for demographics and medical and psychiatric conditions.

Interestingly, the association with sleep disorders was strongest among those with mild TBI versus a more severe brain injury.

The study showed that the risk for sleep disorders increased up to 14 years after a brain injury, an indicator that “clinicians should really pay attention to sleep disorders in TBI patients both in the short term and the long term,” study investigator Yue Leng, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 3 in Neurology.
 

First long-term look

TBI is common among veterans, who may have sleep complaints or psychiatric symptoms, but previous studies into the consequences of TBI have examined the short- vs. long-term impact, said Dr. Leng.

To examine the longitudinal association between TBI and sleep disorders, the investigators examined data on 98,709 Veterans Health Administration patients diagnosed with TBI and an age-matched group of the same number of veterans who had not received such a diagnosis. The mean age of the participants was 49 years at baseline, and 11.7% were women. Of the TBI cases, 49.6% were mild.

Researchers used an exposure survey and diagnostic codes to establish TBI and its severity.

Patients with TBI were more likely to be male and were much more likely to have a psychiatric condition, such as a mood disorder (22.4% vs. 9.3%), anxiety (10.5% vs. 4.4%), posttraumatic stress disorder (19.5% vs. 4.4%), or substance abuse (11.4% vs. 5.2%). They were also more likely to smoke or use tobacco (13.5% vs. 8.7%).

Researchers assessed a number of sleep disorders, including insomnia, hypersomnia disorders, narcolepsy, sleep-related breathing disorders, and sleep-related movement disorders.

During a follow-up period that averaged 5 years but ranged up to 14 years, 23.4% of veterans with TBI and 15.8% of those without TBI developed a sleep disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, and income, those who had suffered a TBI were 50% more likely to develop any sleep disorder, compared with those who had not had a TBI (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.53.)

After controlling for medical conditions that included diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular disease, as well as psychiatric disorders such as mood disorders, anxiety, PTSD, substance use disorder, and tobacco use, the HR for developing a sleep disorder was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.37-1.44).

The association with TBI was stronger for some sleep disorders. Adjusted HRs were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.45-1.55) for insomnia, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.39-1.61) for hypersomnia, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.16-1.52) for sleep-related movement disorders, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.32) for sleep apnea.

It’s unclear what causes postinjury sleep problems, but it could be that TBI induces structural brain damage, or it could affect melatonin secretion or wake-promoting neurons.

Damage to arousal-promoting neurons could help explain the reason the link between TBI and sleep disorders was strongest for insomnia and hypersomnia, although the exact mechanism is unclear, said Dr. Leng.
 

Greater risk with mild TBI

Overall, the association was stronger for mild TBI than for moderate to severe TBI. This, said Dr. Leng, might be because of differences in the brain injury mechanism.

Mild TBI often involves repetitive concussive or subconcussive injuries, such as sports injuries or blast injury among active-duty military personnel. This type of injury is more likely to cause diffuse axonal injury and inflammation, whereas moderate or severe TBI is often attributable to a direct blow with more focal but severe damage, explained Dr. Leng.

She noted that veterans with mild TBI were more likely to have a psychiatric condition, but because the study controlled for such conditions, this doesn’t fully explain the stronger association between mild TBI and sleep disorders.

Further studies are needed to sort out the exact mechanisms, she said.

The association between TBI and risk for sleep disorders was reduced somewhat but was still moderate in an analysis that excluded patients who developed a sleep disorder within 2 years of a brain injury.

This analysis, said Dr. Leng, helped ensure that the sleep disorder developed after the brain injury.

The researchers could not examine the trajectory of sleep problems, so it’s not clear whether sleep problems worsen or get better over time, said Dr. Leng.

Because PTSD also leads to sleep problems, the researchers thought that having both PTSD and TBI might increase the risk for sleep problems. “But actually we found the association was pretty similar in those with, and without, PTSD, so that was kind of contrary to our hypothesis,” she said.

The new results underline the need for more screening for sleep disorders among patients with TBI, both in the short term and the long term, said Dr. Leng. “Clinicians should ask TBI patients about their sleep, and they should follow that up,” she said.

She added that long-term sleep disorders can affect a patient’s health and can lead to psychiatric problems and neurodegenerative diseases.

Depending on the type of sleep disorder, there are a number of possible treatments. For example, for patients with sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure treatment may be considered.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology; CEO, Brainsport, Team Neurologist, the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League; and past president, Florida Society of Neurology, said the study is “by far” the largest to investigate the correlation between sleep disorders and head trauma.

The design and outcome measures “were well thought out,” and the researchers “did an outstanding job in sorting through and analyzing the data,” said Dr. Conidi.

He added that he was particularly impressed with how the researchers addressed PTSD, which is highly prevalent among veterans with head trauma and is known to affect sleep.

The new results “solidify what those of us who see individuals with TBI have observed over the years: that there is a higher incidence of all types of sleep disorders” in individuals with a TBI, said Dr. Conidi.

However, he questioned the study’s use of guidelines to classify the various types of head trauma. These guidelines, he said, “are based on loss of consciousness, which we have started to move away from when classifying TBI.”

In addition, Dr. Conidi said he “would have loved to have seen” some correlation with neuroimaging studies, such as those used to assess subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and diffuse axonal injury, but that this “could be an impetus for future studies.”

In “a perfect world,” all patients with a TBI would undergo a polysomnography study in a sleep laboratory, but insurance companies now rarely cover such studies and have attempted to have clinicians shift to home sleep studies, said Dr. Conidi. “These are marginal at best for screening for sleep disorders,” he noted.

At his centers, every TBI patient is screened for sleep disorders and, whenever possible, undergoes formal evaluation in the sleep lab, he added.

The study was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Leng and Dr. Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Veterans who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) are significantly more likely to develop insomnia and other sleep problems years later compared to their counterparts who have not suffered a brain injury, a new study shows.

Results of a large longitudinal study show that those with TBI were about 40% more likely to develop insomnia, sleep apnea, excessive daytime sleepiness, or another sleep disorder in later years, after adjusting for demographics and medical and psychiatric conditions.

Interestingly, the association with sleep disorders was strongest among those with mild TBI versus a more severe brain injury.

The study showed that the risk for sleep disorders increased up to 14 years after a brain injury, an indicator that “clinicians should really pay attention to sleep disorders in TBI patients both in the short term and the long term,” study investigator Yue Leng, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 3 in Neurology.
 

First long-term look

TBI is common among veterans, who may have sleep complaints or psychiatric symptoms, but previous studies into the consequences of TBI have examined the short- vs. long-term impact, said Dr. Leng.

To examine the longitudinal association between TBI and sleep disorders, the investigators examined data on 98,709 Veterans Health Administration patients diagnosed with TBI and an age-matched group of the same number of veterans who had not received such a diagnosis. The mean age of the participants was 49 years at baseline, and 11.7% were women. Of the TBI cases, 49.6% were mild.

Researchers used an exposure survey and diagnostic codes to establish TBI and its severity.

Patients with TBI were more likely to be male and were much more likely to have a psychiatric condition, such as a mood disorder (22.4% vs. 9.3%), anxiety (10.5% vs. 4.4%), posttraumatic stress disorder (19.5% vs. 4.4%), or substance abuse (11.4% vs. 5.2%). They were also more likely to smoke or use tobacco (13.5% vs. 8.7%).

Researchers assessed a number of sleep disorders, including insomnia, hypersomnia disorders, narcolepsy, sleep-related breathing disorders, and sleep-related movement disorders.

During a follow-up period that averaged 5 years but ranged up to 14 years, 23.4% of veterans with TBI and 15.8% of those without TBI developed a sleep disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, and income, those who had suffered a TBI were 50% more likely to develop any sleep disorder, compared with those who had not had a TBI (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.53.)

After controlling for medical conditions that included diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular disease, as well as psychiatric disorders such as mood disorders, anxiety, PTSD, substance use disorder, and tobacco use, the HR for developing a sleep disorder was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.37-1.44).

The association with TBI was stronger for some sleep disorders. Adjusted HRs were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.45-1.55) for insomnia, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.39-1.61) for hypersomnia, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.16-1.52) for sleep-related movement disorders, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.32) for sleep apnea.

It’s unclear what causes postinjury sleep problems, but it could be that TBI induces structural brain damage, or it could affect melatonin secretion or wake-promoting neurons.

Damage to arousal-promoting neurons could help explain the reason the link between TBI and sleep disorders was strongest for insomnia and hypersomnia, although the exact mechanism is unclear, said Dr. Leng.
 

Greater risk with mild TBI

Overall, the association was stronger for mild TBI than for moderate to severe TBI. This, said Dr. Leng, might be because of differences in the brain injury mechanism.

Mild TBI often involves repetitive concussive or subconcussive injuries, such as sports injuries or blast injury among active-duty military personnel. This type of injury is more likely to cause diffuse axonal injury and inflammation, whereas moderate or severe TBI is often attributable to a direct blow with more focal but severe damage, explained Dr. Leng.

She noted that veterans with mild TBI were more likely to have a psychiatric condition, but because the study controlled for such conditions, this doesn’t fully explain the stronger association between mild TBI and sleep disorders.

Further studies are needed to sort out the exact mechanisms, she said.

The association between TBI and risk for sleep disorders was reduced somewhat but was still moderate in an analysis that excluded patients who developed a sleep disorder within 2 years of a brain injury.

This analysis, said Dr. Leng, helped ensure that the sleep disorder developed after the brain injury.

The researchers could not examine the trajectory of sleep problems, so it’s not clear whether sleep problems worsen or get better over time, said Dr. Leng.

Because PTSD also leads to sleep problems, the researchers thought that having both PTSD and TBI might increase the risk for sleep problems. “But actually we found the association was pretty similar in those with, and without, PTSD, so that was kind of contrary to our hypothesis,” she said.

The new results underline the need for more screening for sleep disorders among patients with TBI, both in the short term and the long term, said Dr. Leng. “Clinicians should ask TBI patients about their sleep, and they should follow that up,” she said.

She added that long-term sleep disorders can affect a patient’s health and can lead to psychiatric problems and neurodegenerative diseases.

Depending on the type of sleep disorder, there are a number of possible treatments. For example, for patients with sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure treatment may be considered.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology; CEO, Brainsport, Team Neurologist, the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League; and past president, Florida Society of Neurology, said the study is “by far” the largest to investigate the correlation between sleep disorders and head trauma.

The design and outcome measures “were well thought out,” and the researchers “did an outstanding job in sorting through and analyzing the data,” said Dr. Conidi.

He added that he was particularly impressed with how the researchers addressed PTSD, which is highly prevalent among veterans with head trauma and is known to affect sleep.

The new results “solidify what those of us who see individuals with TBI have observed over the years: that there is a higher incidence of all types of sleep disorders” in individuals with a TBI, said Dr. Conidi.

However, he questioned the study’s use of guidelines to classify the various types of head trauma. These guidelines, he said, “are based on loss of consciousness, which we have started to move away from when classifying TBI.”

In addition, Dr. Conidi said he “would have loved to have seen” some correlation with neuroimaging studies, such as those used to assess subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and diffuse axonal injury, but that this “could be an impetus for future studies.”

In “a perfect world,” all patients with a TBI would undergo a polysomnography study in a sleep laboratory, but insurance companies now rarely cover such studies and have attempted to have clinicians shift to home sleep studies, said Dr. Conidi. “These are marginal at best for screening for sleep disorders,” he noted.

At his centers, every TBI patient is screened for sleep disorders and, whenever possible, undergoes formal evaluation in the sleep lab, he added.

The study was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Leng and Dr. Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Veterans who have suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) are significantly more likely to develop insomnia and other sleep problems years later compared to their counterparts who have not suffered a brain injury, a new study shows.

Results of a large longitudinal study show that those with TBI were about 40% more likely to develop insomnia, sleep apnea, excessive daytime sleepiness, or another sleep disorder in later years, after adjusting for demographics and medical and psychiatric conditions.

Interestingly, the association with sleep disorders was strongest among those with mild TBI versus a more severe brain injury.

The study showed that the risk for sleep disorders increased up to 14 years after a brain injury, an indicator that “clinicians should really pay attention to sleep disorders in TBI patients both in the short term and the long term,” study investigator Yue Leng, MD, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization.

The study was published online March 3 in Neurology.
 

First long-term look

TBI is common among veterans, who may have sleep complaints or psychiatric symptoms, but previous studies into the consequences of TBI have examined the short- vs. long-term impact, said Dr. Leng.

To examine the longitudinal association between TBI and sleep disorders, the investigators examined data on 98,709 Veterans Health Administration patients diagnosed with TBI and an age-matched group of the same number of veterans who had not received such a diagnosis. The mean age of the participants was 49 years at baseline, and 11.7% were women. Of the TBI cases, 49.6% were mild.

Researchers used an exposure survey and diagnostic codes to establish TBI and its severity.

Patients with TBI were more likely to be male and were much more likely to have a psychiatric condition, such as a mood disorder (22.4% vs. 9.3%), anxiety (10.5% vs. 4.4%), posttraumatic stress disorder (19.5% vs. 4.4%), or substance abuse (11.4% vs. 5.2%). They were also more likely to smoke or use tobacco (13.5% vs. 8.7%).

Researchers assessed a number of sleep disorders, including insomnia, hypersomnia disorders, narcolepsy, sleep-related breathing disorders, and sleep-related movement disorders.

During a follow-up period that averaged 5 years but ranged up to 14 years, 23.4% of veterans with TBI and 15.8% of those without TBI developed a sleep disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, and income, those who had suffered a TBI were 50% more likely to develop any sleep disorder, compared with those who had not had a TBI (hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.53.)

After controlling for medical conditions that included diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular disease, as well as psychiatric disorders such as mood disorders, anxiety, PTSD, substance use disorder, and tobacco use, the HR for developing a sleep disorder was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.37-1.44).

The association with TBI was stronger for some sleep disorders. Adjusted HRs were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.45-1.55) for insomnia, 1.50 (95% CI, 1.39-1.61) for hypersomnia, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.16-1.52) for sleep-related movement disorders, and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.32) for sleep apnea.

It’s unclear what causes postinjury sleep problems, but it could be that TBI induces structural brain damage, or it could affect melatonin secretion or wake-promoting neurons.

Damage to arousal-promoting neurons could help explain the reason the link between TBI and sleep disorders was strongest for insomnia and hypersomnia, although the exact mechanism is unclear, said Dr. Leng.
 

Greater risk with mild TBI

Overall, the association was stronger for mild TBI than for moderate to severe TBI. This, said Dr. Leng, might be because of differences in the brain injury mechanism.

Mild TBI often involves repetitive concussive or subconcussive injuries, such as sports injuries or blast injury among active-duty military personnel. This type of injury is more likely to cause diffuse axonal injury and inflammation, whereas moderate or severe TBI is often attributable to a direct blow with more focal but severe damage, explained Dr. Leng.

She noted that veterans with mild TBI were more likely to have a psychiatric condition, but because the study controlled for such conditions, this doesn’t fully explain the stronger association between mild TBI and sleep disorders.

Further studies are needed to sort out the exact mechanisms, she said.

The association between TBI and risk for sleep disorders was reduced somewhat but was still moderate in an analysis that excluded patients who developed a sleep disorder within 2 years of a brain injury.

This analysis, said Dr. Leng, helped ensure that the sleep disorder developed after the brain injury.

The researchers could not examine the trajectory of sleep problems, so it’s not clear whether sleep problems worsen or get better over time, said Dr. Leng.

Because PTSD also leads to sleep problems, the researchers thought that having both PTSD and TBI might increase the risk for sleep problems. “But actually we found the association was pretty similar in those with, and without, PTSD, so that was kind of contrary to our hypothesis,” she said.

The new results underline the need for more screening for sleep disorders among patients with TBI, both in the short term and the long term, said Dr. Leng. “Clinicians should ask TBI patients about their sleep, and they should follow that up,” she said.

She added that long-term sleep disorders can affect a patient’s health and can lead to psychiatric problems and neurodegenerative diseases.

Depending on the type of sleep disorder, there are a number of possible treatments. For example, for patients with sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure treatment may be considered.
 

‘Outstanding’ research

Commenting for this news organization, Frank Conidi, MD, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology; CEO, Brainsport, Team Neurologist, the Florida Panthers of the National Hockey League; and past president, Florida Society of Neurology, said the study is “by far” the largest to investigate the correlation between sleep disorders and head trauma.

The design and outcome measures “were well thought out,” and the researchers “did an outstanding job in sorting through and analyzing the data,” said Dr. Conidi.

He added that he was particularly impressed with how the researchers addressed PTSD, which is highly prevalent among veterans with head trauma and is known to affect sleep.

The new results “solidify what those of us who see individuals with TBI have observed over the years: that there is a higher incidence of all types of sleep disorders” in individuals with a TBI, said Dr. Conidi.

However, he questioned the study’s use of guidelines to classify the various types of head trauma. These guidelines, he said, “are based on loss of consciousness, which we have started to move away from when classifying TBI.”

In addition, Dr. Conidi said he “would have loved to have seen” some correlation with neuroimaging studies, such as those used to assess subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and diffuse axonal injury, but that this “could be an impetus for future studies.”

In “a perfect world,” all patients with a TBI would undergo a polysomnography study in a sleep laboratory, but insurance companies now rarely cover such studies and have attempted to have clinicians shift to home sleep studies, said Dr. Conidi. “These are marginal at best for screening for sleep disorders,” he noted.

At his centers, every TBI patient is screened for sleep disorders and, whenever possible, undergoes formal evaluation in the sleep lab, he added.

The study was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Leng and Dr. Conidi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy and Outcomes. By Dr. Rank, et al.

Long-term Benefits of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD Patients: A 2-Year Follow-up Study. By Dr. A. Yohannes, et al.



Impact of Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. E. Cano, et al.



Leadership Essentials for the Chest Physician: Models, Attributes, and Styles. By Dr. J. K. Stoller.



Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. D. Jiménez, et al.



Disparities in Sleep Health and Potential Intervention Models: A Focused Review. By Dr. S. Sharma, et al.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy and Outcomes. By Dr. Rank, et al.

Long-term Benefits of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD Patients: A 2-Year Follow-up Study. By Dr. A. Yohannes, et al.



Impact of Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. E. Cano, et al.



Leadership Essentials for the Chest Physician: Models, Attributes, and Styles. By Dr. J. K. Stoller.



Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. D. Jiménez, et al.



Disparities in Sleep Health and Potential Intervention Models: A Focused Review. By Dr. S. Sharma, et al.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy and Outcomes. By Dr. Rank, et al.

Long-term Benefits of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD Patients: A 2-Year Follow-up Study. By Dr. A. Yohannes, et al.



Impact of Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. E. Cano, et al.



Leadership Essentials for the Chest Physician: Models, Attributes, and Styles. By Dr. J. K. Stoller.



Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. D. Jiménez, et al.



Disparities in Sleep Health and Potential Intervention Models: A Focused Review. By Dr. S. Sharma, et al.

CHEST is excited to announce that CHEST 2021 will be held in Orlando, Florida, from October 17-21 at the Orange County Convention Center. CHEST 2021 will be offered as both an in-person and online experience. Since travel restrictions remain unknown, CHEST is working to ensure that everyone has access to the same top-tier learning – wherever they are.

“Learning together as a community is an important aspect of the CHEST annual meeting. Whether we are face-to-face or online, the knowledge gained from expert presenters, simulations and games, and talking with one another can’t be duplicated elsewhere. In whatever way you can attend, join us at CHEST 2021 to discuss the critically relevant topics affecting our patients and chest medicine,” said CHEST President Steve Simpson, MD, FCCP.

It is also essential that those who cannot travel can still avail themselves of the engaging and interactive learning offered at the CHEST conference. Everyone – whether online or in-person – will be able to experience the meeting in real-time, including expert faculty presentations, simulated learning experiences, gaming, and more.
 

What to expect

Through bite-sized, immersive learning, experts in the field will cover the latest updates in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. CHEST 2021 offers you the opportunity to learn from a diverse set of knowledgeable educators representing different viewpoints and experiences.

Team-based learning is an indispensable component of the annual meeting. The activities support collaborative discovery and help you build relationships with your peers. Known for its development of simulation courses, at CHEST 2021, you can take part in the latest in “hands-on” learning. In addition, gaming will allow for friendly competition among colleagues, whether playing from home or on-site.
 

Getting involved

Make your mark by submitting your original abstracts and case reports to be presented at CHEST 2021. Because of the past year’s challenges, new discoveries were made in the treatment and approaches to managing chest medicine diseases. This work is important and will inform the way patients receive care in the future.

Showcase COVID-19 research, among other topics you are working on, for a chance to share your findings with colleagues, gain feedback from expert faculty, collaborate with other professionals in the field, and expand your professional portfolio. The deadline to submit is April 28. [link]
 

Keeping safe

It’s been a long time since in-person conferences were possible. CHEST is closely monitoring the status of the pandemic throughout the planning process. The Orange County Convention Center was selected because the venue is large enough to support social distancing. The CHEST team is establishing protocols that limit the number of individuals in a space, promote good traffic flow, require the wearing of masks, and other safety measures. All on-site participants and CHEST support staff will be required to attest to having received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend.

Continue to watch for more information. Registration for CHEST 2021 will open in May. We’ve missed you, and we look forward to seeing you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20.

CHEST is excited to announce that CHEST 2021 will be held in Orlando, Florida, from October 17-21 at the Orange County Convention Center. CHEST 2021 will be offered as both an in-person and online experience. Since travel restrictions remain unknown, CHEST is working to ensure that everyone has access to the same top-tier learning – wherever they are.

“Learning together as a community is an important aspect of the CHEST annual meeting. Whether we are face-to-face or online, the knowledge gained from expert presenters, simulations and games, and talking with one another can’t be duplicated elsewhere. In whatever way you can attend, join us at CHEST 2021 to discuss the critically relevant topics affecting our patients and chest medicine,” said CHEST President Steve Simpson, MD, FCCP.

It is also essential that those who cannot travel can still avail themselves of the engaging and interactive learning offered at the CHEST conference. Everyone – whether online or in-person – will be able to experience the meeting in real-time, including expert faculty presentations, simulated learning experiences, gaming, and more.
 

What to expect

Through bite-sized, immersive learning, experts in the field will cover the latest updates in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. CHEST 2021 offers you the opportunity to learn from a diverse set of knowledgeable educators representing different viewpoints and experiences.

Team-based learning is an indispensable component of the annual meeting. The activities support collaborative discovery and help you build relationships with your peers. Known for its development of simulation courses, at CHEST 2021, you can take part in the latest in “hands-on” learning. In addition, gaming will allow for friendly competition among colleagues, whether playing from home or on-site.
 

Getting involved

Make your mark by submitting your original abstracts and case reports to be presented at CHEST 2021. Because of the past year’s challenges, new discoveries were made in the treatment and approaches to managing chest medicine diseases. This work is important and will inform the way patients receive care in the future.

Showcase COVID-19 research, among other topics you are working on, for a chance to share your findings with colleagues, gain feedback from expert faculty, collaborate with other professionals in the field, and expand your professional portfolio. The deadline to submit is April 28. [link]
 

Keeping safe

It’s been a long time since in-person conferences were possible. CHEST is closely monitoring the status of the pandemic throughout the planning process. The Orange County Convention Center was selected because the venue is large enough to support social distancing. The CHEST team is establishing protocols that limit the number of individuals in a space, promote good traffic flow, require the wearing of masks, and other safety measures. All on-site participants and CHEST support staff will be required to attest to having received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend.

Continue to watch for more information. Registration for CHEST 2021 will open in May. We’ve missed you, and we look forward to seeing you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20.

CHEST is excited to announce that CHEST 2021 will be held in Orlando, Florida, from October 17-21 at the Orange County Convention Center. CHEST 2021 will be offered as both an in-person and online experience. Since travel restrictions remain unknown, CHEST is working to ensure that everyone has access to the same top-tier learning – wherever they are.

“Learning together as a community is an important aspect of the CHEST annual meeting. Whether we are face-to-face or online, the knowledge gained from expert presenters, simulations and games, and talking with one another can’t be duplicated elsewhere. In whatever way you can attend, join us at CHEST 2021 to discuss the critically relevant topics affecting our patients and chest medicine,” said CHEST President Steve Simpson, MD, FCCP.

It is also essential that those who cannot travel can still avail themselves of the engaging and interactive learning offered at the CHEST conference. Everyone – whether online or in-person – will be able to experience the meeting in real-time, including expert faculty presentations, simulated learning experiences, gaming, and more.
 

What to expect

Through bite-sized, immersive learning, experts in the field will cover the latest updates in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. CHEST 2021 offers you the opportunity to learn from a diverse set of knowledgeable educators representing different viewpoints and experiences.

Team-based learning is an indispensable component of the annual meeting. The activities support collaborative discovery and help you build relationships with your peers. Known for its development of simulation courses, at CHEST 2021, you can take part in the latest in “hands-on” learning. In addition, gaming will allow for friendly competition among colleagues, whether playing from home or on-site.
 

Getting involved

Make your mark by submitting your original abstracts and case reports to be presented at CHEST 2021. Because of the past year’s challenges, new discoveries were made in the treatment and approaches to managing chest medicine diseases. This work is important and will inform the way patients receive care in the future.

Showcase COVID-19 research, among other topics you are working on, for a chance to share your findings with colleagues, gain feedback from expert faculty, collaborate with other professionals in the field, and expand your professional portfolio. The deadline to submit is April 28. [link]
 

Keeping safe

It’s been a long time since in-person conferences were possible. CHEST is closely monitoring the status of the pandemic throughout the planning process. The Orange County Convention Center was selected because the venue is large enough to support social distancing. The CHEST team is establishing protocols that limit the number of individuals in a space, promote good traffic flow, require the wearing of masks, and other safety measures. All on-site participants and CHEST support staff will be required to attest to having received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend.

Continue to watch for more information. Registration for CHEST 2021 will open in May. We’ve missed you, and we look forward to seeing you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20.

Patients with COPD may develop sustained hypercapnia, often defined as an awake arterial PCO2 of >45 mm Hg. Other synonymous terms include alveolar hypoventilation or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, noting that the specific terminology used may reflect local practice, an assessment of patient severity, or specific insurance requirements. Regardless, available data suggest that hypercapnic COPD patients are at high risk for adverse health outcomes (Yang H, et al. BMJ Open. 2015;5[12]:e008909). Moreover, there appears to have been a growing interest in this population driven by a focus on reducing COPD hospitalizations, increasing recognition of sleep disordered breathing, and progress in potential therapeutic strategies.

There are a number of factors that might drive COPD patients to develop hypercapnia. Lower airway obstruction, expiratory flow limitation and air trapping cause mechanical load on breathing, as well as a trade-off between time spent in inspiration vs prolonged expiration. The function of the diaphragm is impacted by hyperinflation leading to mal-positioning, as well as possibly by local and/or systemic myopathy. The net result is often decreased overall minute ventilation. In terms of gas exchange, increased dead space and ventilation-perfusion mismatching leads to reduced efficiency of ventilation towards CO₂ removal. Breathing changes during sleep play an important role, as evidenced by worsened hypercapnia during sleep that can drive chronic CO₂ retention (O’Donoghue FJ, et al. Eur Respir J. 2003;21[6]:977). The pathogenesis includes reduced central respiratory drive, increased upper airway resistance and/or obstructive hypopneas and apneas, and respiratory muscle atonia, particularly during REM sleep. The extent to which each of these factors contributes to hypercapnia varies across individual patients, in accordance with the known substantial heterogeneity of COPD. Regardless of underlying traits, patients with COPD who develop hypercapnia have sufficiently severe perturbations to disrupt the normally tight control over CO₂ homeostasis.

Nocturnal home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been examined as a potential therapeutic strategy for patients with hypercapnic COPD. While older studies have not shown consistent benefits, more recent evidence suggests that NIV can reduce hospitalizations, improve quality of life, and potentially reduce mortality among those with hypercapnic COPD. Accordingly, the American Thoracic Society recently released a clinical practice guideline regarding the use of NIV in patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD (Macrea M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87). Recommendations from the guideline included:

1) The use of nocturnal NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD

2) Screening for OSA before initiation of long-term NIV

3) Not using in-hospital initiation of long-term NIV after an episode of acute or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, favoring instead reassessment for NIV at 2–4 weeks after resolution

4) Not using an in-laboratory overnight PSG to initially titrate NIV

5) Targeting normalization of PaCO₂.

Although it now seems clear that efforts should be made to use NIV in COPD to decrease chronic hypercapnia, there are a number of important questions that remain, particularly surrounding the topic of concurrent OSA, titration, and devices:

• What is the appropriate approach towards patients with suspected concurrent OSA? Most studies of NIV have excluded patients with OSA, or otherwise at higher risk of OSA. Nonetheless, such patients may be common, both based on continued high prevalence of obesity, as well as the potential role that upper airway obstructive events may play towards elevations in CO₂ (Resta O., et al. Sleep Breath. 2002;6[1]:11-8). COPD epidemiological studies indicate obesity as a risk factor for several poor outcomes, including severe COPD exacerbation (Lambert AA, et al. Chest. 2017;151[1]:68-77), while studies of COPD and OSA suggest that the presence of hypercapnia defines a high-risk group Jaoude P., Lung. 2014;192:215). Recognizing the potential importance of OSA in this group, ATS guidelines recommend that a general questionnaire-based screening be performed. If screening is positive, the implication would be to perform diagnostic polysomnography to confirm the diagnosis of OSA. However, this may be a challenge for chronically ill patients, and likely would result in delays in NIV initiation. Of note, emerging evidence suggests that home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) might have reasonable accuracy in this group, which may facilitate formal diagnosis. Other concerns in this area include the lack of questionnaire validation in COPD patients.

• Should patients with OSA be managed differently than those without OSA? A diagnosis of OSA might impact several subsequent management decisions related to appropriate NIV therapy and titration. Patients with OSA have increased upper airway collapsibility, which might necessitate higher EPAP support than the minimal EPAP used in NIV trials with non-OSA patients (often fixed at 4 cm water). Potential strategies for optimizing EPAP include use of an NIV device with auto-titrating EPAP, titration in the sleep laboratory (discussed below), or outpatient titration based on clinical parameters and subsequent device download follow-up. On the other hand, one might consider all patients to be at risk for upper airway obstruction and need for additional EPAP titration, which would obviate the need for OSA diagnostic testing.

• What is the role of the sleep laboratory towards successful titration? The inpatient hospital setting has been the traditional site to initiate home NIV in some institutions but is highly resource intensive and increasingly impractical in many health systems. On the other hand, advances in home remote device monitoring now provide the clinician with the ability to examine daily usage, estimated leak, tidal volumes, respiratory rate, and other parameters – often reported as recently as the prior night. In addition, setting changes can be made via these remote monitoring tools (for nonventilator devices), allowing titration to be performed over time on outpatients. Several studies support the effectiveness of this approach over hospital titration in neuromuscular disease and now in COPD (Duiverman ML, et al. Thorax. 2020;75[3]:244-52). Similarly, data suggest that titration under polysomnographic guidance might not be necessary (Patout M, Arbane G, Cuvelier A, Muir JF, Hart N, Murphy PB. Polysomnography versus limited respiratory monitoring and nurse-led titration to optimize non-invasive ventilation set-up: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Thorax. 2019;74:83-86).

Limitations towards the sleep lab as the site of initial titration include waiting time, cost and insurance coverage, and the need to accommodate issues such as impaired mobility or reliance on a caretaker. In addition, titration goals must be clearly outlined in protocols and via staff training specific to NIV. The sleep laboratory may be most appropriately utilized in the minority of patients in whom outpatient titration is unsuccessful. Relatively common issues that might be best addressed in the lab setting include excessive mask leaks, residual apneas and hypopneas, failure to control CO₂, or other sleep complaints. In general, studies should probably be focused primarily on titrating EPAP to alleviate upper airway obstructive events. The goals in terms of IPAP titration (or ventilation titration, in the case of “VAPS” modes) are less clear, and overly aggressive increases may complicate the picture with excessive leaks or airway obstruction due to glottic closure. Attempting to accomplish “too much” often leads to a study with limited utility. In contrast, simply performing the study in the patient’s home settings can provide useful diagnostic information regarding the problem one is trying to solve.

• When and where should one initiate NIV following a severe COPD exacerbation? In contrast to the ATS guidelines, the European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest that patients recovering from severe COPD exacerbations be initiated on NIV during that hospitalization, noting that this is a group at high risk for early rehospitalization and mortality (Ergan B, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019;54[3]:1901003). ATS guidelines had the concern of unnecessary start of NIV in those who might normalize their CO₂ after recovery, and the possibility of prolonging hospitalizations for titration. For the clinician, the decision will probably be individualized based on risk and available resources. For patients with frequent ICU admissions and/or difficulty with close outpatient follow-up, earlier NIV initiation is certainly a reasonable approach, but adherence and effectiveness remains a concern and, thus, more data are needed.

• Which patients should receive a bedside respiratory assist device (RAD, i.e., BIPAP machine) vs. a noninvasive ventilator? Two classes of devices can be used for home NIV. While both can provide similar positive pressure ventilation, ventilators are designed as life support with alarms and batteries, and may have modes not otherwise available (e.g., auto-titrating EPAP). On the other hand, RAD devices are more convenient for patients and less expensive, but difficult qualification requirements (particularly for devices capable of Bilevel ST or VAPS) have likely resulted in their underutilization. CHEST is spearheading an effort to reconsider Medicare coverage determinations (current rules are from 1998), which will hopefully better align device qualification requirements with emerging evidence regarding patient needs and preferences.

Home non-invasive ventilation can improve outcomes in these high-risk patients with hypercapnic COPD, and the new clinical practice guidelines are an important step in outlining appropriate management. Further progress is needed to delineate an individualized approach based on underlying patient pathophysiology, COPD manifestations/phenotypes, and systems-based practice considerations.

Dr. Orr is Assistant Professor, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, UC San Diego.

Patients with COPD may develop sustained hypercapnia, often defined as an awake arterial PCO2 of >45 mm Hg. Other synonymous terms include alveolar hypoventilation or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, noting that the specific terminology used may reflect local practice, an assessment of patient severity, or specific insurance requirements. Regardless, available data suggest that hypercapnic COPD patients are at high risk for adverse health outcomes (Yang H, et al. BMJ Open. 2015;5[12]:e008909). Moreover, there appears to have been a growing interest in this population driven by a focus on reducing COPD hospitalizations, increasing recognition of sleep disordered breathing, and progress in potential therapeutic strategies.

There are a number of factors that might drive COPD patients to develop hypercapnia. Lower airway obstruction, expiratory flow limitation and air trapping cause mechanical load on breathing, as well as a trade-off between time spent in inspiration vs prolonged expiration. The function of the diaphragm is impacted by hyperinflation leading to mal-positioning, as well as possibly by local and/or systemic myopathy. The net result is often decreased overall minute ventilation. In terms of gas exchange, increased dead space and ventilation-perfusion mismatching leads to reduced efficiency of ventilation towards CO₂ removal. Breathing changes during sleep play an important role, as evidenced by worsened hypercapnia during sleep that can drive chronic CO₂ retention (O’Donoghue FJ, et al. Eur Respir J. 2003;21[6]:977). The pathogenesis includes reduced central respiratory drive, increased upper airway resistance and/or obstructive hypopneas and apneas, and respiratory muscle atonia, particularly during REM sleep. The extent to which each of these factors contributes to hypercapnia varies across individual patients, in accordance with the known substantial heterogeneity of COPD. Regardless of underlying traits, patients with COPD who develop hypercapnia have sufficiently severe perturbations to disrupt the normally tight control over CO₂ homeostasis.

Nocturnal home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been examined as a potential therapeutic strategy for patients with hypercapnic COPD. While older studies have not shown consistent benefits, more recent evidence suggests that NIV can reduce hospitalizations, improve quality of life, and potentially reduce mortality among those with hypercapnic COPD. Accordingly, the American Thoracic Society recently released a clinical practice guideline regarding the use of NIV in patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD (Macrea M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87). Recommendations from the guideline included:

1) The use of nocturnal NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD

2) Screening for OSA before initiation of long-term NIV

3) Not using in-hospital initiation of long-term NIV after an episode of acute or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, favoring instead reassessment for NIV at 2–4 weeks after resolution

4) Not using an in-laboratory overnight PSG to initially titrate NIV

5) Targeting normalization of PaCO₂.

Although it now seems clear that efforts should be made to use NIV in COPD to decrease chronic hypercapnia, there are a number of important questions that remain, particularly surrounding the topic of concurrent OSA, titration, and devices:

• What is the appropriate approach towards patients with suspected concurrent OSA? Most studies of NIV have excluded patients with OSA, or otherwise at higher risk of OSA. Nonetheless, such patients may be common, both based on continued high prevalence of obesity, as well as the potential role that upper airway obstructive events may play towards elevations in CO₂ (Resta O., et al. Sleep Breath. 2002;6[1]:11-8). COPD epidemiological studies indicate obesity as a risk factor for several poor outcomes, including severe COPD exacerbation (Lambert AA, et al. Chest. 2017;151[1]:68-77), while studies of COPD and OSA suggest that the presence of hypercapnia defines a high-risk group Jaoude P., Lung. 2014;192:215). Recognizing the potential importance of OSA in this group, ATS guidelines recommend that a general questionnaire-based screening be performed. If screening is positive, the implication would be to perform diagnostic polysomnography to confirm the diagnosis of OSA. However, this may be a challenge for chronically ill patients, and likely would result in delays in NIV initiation. Of note, emerging evidence suggests that home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) might have reasonable accuracy in this group, which may facilitate formal diagnosis. Other concerns in this area include the lack of questionnaire validation in COPD patients.

• Should patients with OSA be managed differently than those without OSA? A diagnosis of OSA might impact several subsequent management decisions related to appropriate NIV therapy and titration. Patients with OSA have increased upper airway collapsibility, which might necessitate higher EPAP support than the minimal EPAP used in NIV trials with non-OSA patients (often fixed at 4 cm water). Potential strategies for optimizing EPAP include use of an NIV device with auto-titrating EPAP, titration in the sleep laboratory (discussed below), or outpatient titration based on clinical parameters and subsequent device download follow-up. On the other hand, one might consider all patients to be at risk for upper airway obstruction and need for additional EPAP titration, which would obviate the need for OSA diagnostic testing.

• What is the role of the sleep laboratory towards successful titration? The inpatient hospital setting has been the traditional site to initiate home NIV in some institutions but is highly resource intensive and increasingly impractical in many health systems. On the other hand, advances in home remote device monitoring now provide the clinician with the ability to examine daily usage, estimated leak, tidal volumes, respiratory rate, and other parameters – often reported as recently as the prior night. In addition, setting changes can be made via these remote monitoring tools (for nonventilator devices), allowing titration to be performed over time on outpatients. Several studies support the effectiveness of this approach over hospital titration in neuromuscular disease and now in COPD (Duiverman ML, et al. Thorax. 2020;75[3]:244-52). Similarly, data suggest that titration under polysomnographic guidance might not be necessary (Patout M, Arbane G, Cuvelier A, Muir JF, Hart N, Murphy PB. Polysomnography versus limited respiratory monitoring and nurse-led titration to optimize non-invasive ventilation set-up: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Thorax. 2019;74:83-86).

Limitations towards the sleep lab as the site of initial titration include waiting time, cost and insurance coverage, and the need to accommodate issues such as impaired mobility or reliance on a caretaker. In addition, titration goals must be clearly outlined in protocols and via staff training specific to NIV. The sleep laboratory may be most appropriately utilized in the minority of patients in whom outpatient titration is unsuccessful. Relatively common issues that might be best addressed in the lab setting include excessive mask leaks, residual apneas and hypopneas, failure to control CO₂, or other sleep complaints. In general, studies should probably be focused primarily on titrating EPAP to alleviate upper airway obstructive events. The goals in terms of IPAP titration (or ventilation titration, in the case of “VAPS” modes) are less clear, and overly aggressive increases may complicate the picture with excessive leaks or airway obstruction due to glottic closure. Attempting to accomplish “too much” often leads to a study with limited utility. In contrast, simply performing the study in the patient’s home settings can provide useful diagnostic information regarding the problem one is trying to solve.

• When and where should one initiate NIV following a severe COPD exacerbation? In contrast to the ATS guidelines, the European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest that patients recovering from severe COPD exacerbations be initiated on NIV during that hospitalization, noting that this is a group at high risk for early rehospitalization and mortality (Ergan B, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019;54[3]:1901003). ATS guidelines had the concern of unnecessary start of NIV in those who might normalize their CO₂ after recovery, and the possibility of prolonging hospitalizations for titration. For the clinician, the decision will probably be individualized based on risk and available resources. For patients with frequent ICU admissions and/or difficulty with close outpatient follow-up, earlier NIV initiation is certainly a reasonable approach, but adherence and effectiveness remains a concern and, thus, more data are needed.

• Which patients should receive a bedside respiratory assist device (RAD, i.e., BIPAP machine) vs. a noninvasive ventilator? Two classes of devices can be used for home NIV. While both can provide similar positive pressure ventilation, ventilators are designed as life support with alarms and batteries, and may have modes not otherwise available (e.g., auto-titrating EPAP). On the other hand, RAD devices are more convenient for patients and less expensive, but difficult qualification requirements (particularly for devices capable of Bilevel ST or VAPS) have likely resulted in their underutilization. CHEST is spearheading an effort to reconsider Medicare coverage determinations (current rules are from 1998), which will hopefully better align device qualification requirements with emerging evidence regarding patient needs and preferences.

Home non-invasive ventilation can improve outcomes in these high-risk patients with hypercapnic COPD, and the new clinical practice guidelines are an important step in outlining appropriate management. Further progress is needed to delineate an individualized approach based on underlying patient pathophysiology, COPD manifestations/phenotypes, and systems-based practice considerations.

Dr. Orr is Assistant Professor, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, UC San Diego.

Patients with COPD may develop sustained hypercapnia, often defined as an awake arterial PCO2 of >45 mm Hg. Other synonymous terms include alveolar hypoventilation or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, noting that the specific terminology used may reflect local practice, an assessment of patient severity, or specific insurance requirements. Regardless, available data suggest that hypercapnic COPD patients are at high risk for adverse health outcomes (Yang H, et al. BMJ Open. 2015;5[12]:e008909). Moreover, there appears to have been a growing interest in this population driven by a focus on reducing COPD hospitalizations, increasing recognition of sleep disordered breathing, and progress in potential therapeutic strategies.

There are a number of factors that might drive COPD patients to develop hypercapnia. Lower airway obstruction, expiratory flow limitation and air trapping cause mechanical load on breathing, as well as a trade-off between time spent in inspiration vs prolonged expiration. The function of the diaphragm is impacted by hyperinflation leading to mal-positioning, as well as possibly by local and/or systemic myopathy. The net result is often decreased overall minute ventilation. In terms of gas exchange, increased dead space and ventilation-perfusion mismatching leads to reduced efficiency of ventilation towards CO₂ removal. Breathing changes during sleep play an important role, as evidenced by worsened hypercapnia during sleep that can drive chronic CO₂ retention (O’Donoghue FJ, et al. Eur Respir J. 2003;21[6]:977). The pathogenesis includes reduced central respiratory drive, increased upper airway resistance and/or obstructive hypopneas and apneas, and respiratory muscle atonia, particularly during REM sleep. The extent to which each of these factors contributes to hypercapnia varies across individual patients, in accordance with the known substantial heterogeneity of COPD. Regardless of underlying traits, patients with COPD who develop hypercapnia have sufficiently severe perturbations to disrupt the normally tight control over CO₂ homeostasis.

Nocturnal home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been examined as a potential therapeutic strategy for patients with hypercapnic COPD. While older studies have not shown consistent benefits, more recent evidence suggests that NIV can reduce hospitalizations, improve quality of life, and potentially reduce mortality among those with hypercapnic COPD. Accordingly, the American Thoracic Society recently released a clinical practice guideline regarding the use of NIV in patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD (Macrea M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87). Recommendations from the guideline included:

1) The use of nocturnal NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD

2) Screening for OSA before initiation of long-term NIV

3) Not using in-hospital initiation of long-term NIV after an episode of acute or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, favoring instead reassessment for NIV at 2–4 weeks after resolution

4) Not using an in-laboratory overnight PSG to initially titrate NIV

5) Targeting normalization of PaCO₂.

Although it now seems clear that efforts should be made to use NIV in COPD to decrease chronic hypercapnia, there are a number of important questions that remain, particularly surrounding the topic of concurrent OSA, titration, and devices:

• What is the appropriate approach towards patients with suspected concurrent OSA? Most studies of NIV have excluded patients with OSA, or otherwise at higher risk of OSA. Nonetheless, such patients may be common, both based on continued high prevalence of obesity, as well as the potential role that upper airway obstructive events may play towards elevations in CO₂ (Resta O., et al. Sleep Breath. 2002;6[1]:11-8). COPD epidemiological studies indicate obesity as a risk factor for several poor outcomes, including severe COPD exacerbation (Lambert AA, et al. Chest. 2017;151[1]:68-77), while studies of COPD and OSA suggest that the presence of hypercapnia defines a high-risk group Jaoude P., Lung. 2014;192:215). Recognizing the potential importance of OSA in this group, ATS guidelines recommend that a general questionnaire-based screening be performed. If screening is positive, the implication would be to perform diagnostic polysomnography to confirm the diagnosis of OSA. However, this may be a challenge for chronically ill patients, and likely would result in delays in NIV initiation. Of note, emerging evidence suggests that home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) might have reasonable accuracy in this group, which may facilitate formal diagnosis. Other concerns in this area include the lack of questionnaire validation in COPD patients.

• Should patients with OSA be managed differently than those without OSA? A diagnosis of OSA might impact several subsequent management decisions related to appropriate NIV therapy and titration. Patients with OSA have increased upper airway collapsibility, which might necessitate higher EPAP support than the minimal EPAP used in NIV trials with non-OSA patients (often fixed at 4 cm water). Potential strategies for optimizing EPAP include use of an NIV device with auto-titrating EPAP, titration in the sleep laboratory (discussed below), or outpatient titration based on clinical parameters and subsequent device download follow-up. On the other hand, one might consider all patients to be at risk for upper airway obstruction and need for additional EPAP titration, which would obviate the need for OSA diagnostic testing.

• What is the role of the sleep laboratory towards successful titration? The inpatient hospital setting has been the traditional site to initiate home NIV in some institutions but is highly resource intensive and increasingly impractical in many health systems. On the other hand, advances in home remote device monitoring now provide the clinician with the ability to examine daily usage, estimated leak, tidal volumes, respiratory rate, and other parameters – often reported as recently as the prior night. In addition, setting changes can be made via these remote monitoring tools (for nonventilator devices), allowing titration to be performed over time on outpatients. Several studies support the effectiveness of this approach over hospital titration in neuromuscular disease and now in COPD (Duiverman ML, et al. Thorax. 2020;75[3]:244-52). Similarly, data suggest that titration under polysomnographic guidance might not be necessary (Patout M, Arbane G, Cuvelier A, Muir JF, Hart N, Murphy PB. Polysomnography versus limited respiratory monitoring and nurse-led titration to optimize non-invasive ventilation set-up: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Thorax. 2019;74:83-86).

Limitations towards the sleep lab as the site of initial titration include waiting time, cost and insurance coverage, and the need to accommodate issues such as impaired mobility or reliance on a caretaker. In addition, titration goals must be clearly outlined in protocols and via staff training specific to NIV. The sleep laboratory may be most appropriately utilized in the minority of patients in whom outpatient titration is unsuccessful. Relatively common issues that might be best addressed in the lab setting include excessive mask leaks, residual apneas and hypopneas, failure to control CO₂, or other sleep complaints. In general, studies should probably be focused primarily on titrating EPAP to alleviate upper airway obstructive events. The goals in terms of IPAP titration (or ventilation titration, in the case of “VAPS” modes) are less clear, and overly aggressive increases may complicate the picture with excessive leaks or airway obstruction due to glottic closure. Attempting to accomplish “too much” often leads to a study with limited utility. In contrast, simply performing the study in the patient’s home settings can provide useful diagnostic information regarding the problem one is trying to solve.

• When and where should one initiate NIV following a severe COPD exacerbation? In contrast to the ATS guidelines, the European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest that patients recovering from severe COPD exacerbations be initiated on NIV during that hospitalization, noting that this is a group at high risk for early rehospitalization and mortality (Ergan B, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019;54[3]:1901003). ATS guidelines had the concern of unnecessary start of NIV in those who might normalize their CO₂ after recovery, and the possibility of prolonging hospitalizations for titration. For the clinician, the decision will probably be individualized based on risk and available resources. For patients with frequent ICU admissions and/or difficulty with close outpatient follow-up, earlier NIV initiation is certainly a reasonable approach, but adherence and effectiveness remains a concern and, thus, more data are needed.

• Which patients should receive a bedside respiratory assist device (RAD, i.e., BIPAP machine) vs. a noninvasive ventilator? Two classes of devices can be used for home NIV. While both can provide similar positive pressure ventilation, ventilators are designed as life support with alarms and batteries, and may have modes not otherwise available (e.g., auto-titrating EPAP). On the other hand, RAD devices are more convenient for patients and less expensive, but difficult qualification requirements (particularly for devices capable of Bilevel ST or VAPS) have likely resulted in their underutilization. CHEST is spearheading an effort to reconsider Medicare coverage determinations (current rules are from 1998), which will hopefully better align device qualification requirements with emerging evidence regarding patient needs and preferences.

Home non-invasive ventilation can improve outcomes in these high-risk patients with hypercapnic COPD, and the new clinical practice guidelines are an important step in outlining appropriate management. Further progress is needed to delineate an individualized approach based on underlying patient pathophysiology, COPD manifestations/phenotypes, and systems-based practice considerations.

Dr. Orr is Assistant Professor, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, UC San Diego.

Disaster response and global health

One step forward, two back…

No adult alive today will live to see global gender parity. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report, published December 2019, assessed four dimensions of gender inequality – health, economic opportunities, educational advancement, and political empowerment.

The report stated that despite some advances, overall global gender parity would not be reached for 99 years. The gender gap is not solely a developing nation’s problem. The US standing as the 51st in gender parity fell to 53rd during the previous 2-year period. And these numbers were before Covid COVID-19.

Disasters, including pandemics, negatively affect female subjects disproportionately. Covid COVID-19 has unmasked and exacerbated both gender and minority disparity. Global health care workers (HCW) are overwhelmingly female, exposing them to a higher risk of contagion. This risk was exceptionally high among Black, Asian, and minority ethnic HCW (Nguyen et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5[9]:E475). The gender pay gap, where women are paid 80% of their male counterparts and women of color make 63%, has led to a greater financial burden among female HCW during Covid COVID-19. Women, including HCW, provide the majority of the unpaid work, i.e., childcare, elder care, and home care. 2020 saw an unprecedented loss of women in the workplace, including health care. Both clinical practice and research have been affected. The long- term effect on women HCW careers is unknown at present. Global gross domestic product growth loss due to this decline in the female workforce is estimated at 1 trillion USD over the next decade.

Disaster and gender parity are entwined. Covid COVID-19 has revealed the persistence of inequalities that nees to be considered in future disaster planning.

Mary Jane Reed, MD, FCCP

Steering Committee Ex-Officio


 

Interstitial and diffuse lung disease

Emergence and benefits of home monitoring and telemedicine for patients with ILD

Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular monitoring with outpatient clinic visits and pulmonary function tests.

The emergence of COVID-19 forced an unprecedented transition to telemedicine and a new reliance on home monitoring. Home spirometry enables quick detection of rapidly progressive disease and is more sensitive than hospital-based spirometry in predicting prognosis (Russel, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[8]:989). Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis randomized to a home monitoring program had improved psychological wellbeing and higher patient satisfaction with individually tailored treatment decisions (Moor, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[3]:393). However, there are some inaccuracies in home monitoring. For instance, pulse oximetry is less reliable in African American patients receiving supplemental oxygen (Sjoding, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2477). It is critical to protect ILD patients from potential COVID-19 exposure given the high risk of serious complications. Telemedicine should be offered to all patients and may actually increase access to care in ILD patients, a population with disabling dyspnea and supplemental oxygen needs that requires specialist care unavailable in many geographic regions. African American patients, those older than 65, and patients with lower socioeconomic status are less willing to engage in videoconferencing (Fischer, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[10]:e2022302). It is essential that telephone visits be offered to minimize disparities in access to care. Many telemedicine platforms enable caregivers and family members to attend visits from separate locations and provide a unique opportunity to address advance care planning. In-person visits should be arranged for patients with no access to internet or telephone or those with poor medical literacy or insufficient social support to conduct a productive remote visit. Telemedicine and home monitoring have proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic and have the potential to continually increase access to and quality of care.

Rebecca Anna Gersten, MD

Steering Committee Member

Practice operations

Use of media platforms to eliminate the COVID-19 infodemic

We were shocked when we read a tweet in December 2020 from a health care worker stating, “My biggest concern is the lack of data and the quick development time. Feels like we are a bunch of guinea pigs” in reference to the new COVID-19 vaccine.

References

1. The Lancet Infectious Diseases-Editorial. The COVID-19 infodemic. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):875.

2. Tangcharoensathien V, et al. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22e19659.

3. Verified. https://shareverified.com/en/about. Accessed Feb 18, 2021.




 

Transplant

COVID-19 + lung transplant

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a dilemma for lung transplantation, with a new group of patients with refractory respiratory failure secondary to the viral illness. As transplant centers worldwide receive referrals for COVID-19 related respiratory failure, information regarding evaluation, listing, and posttransplant care continues to be published, but further research will be needed to care for this complex population. 

The first lung transplant for COVID-19 in the United States occurred at Northwestern Hospital on June 5th, 2020,and was publicized for its innovativeness. Information from their three lung transplants completed thus far includes information regarding pathologic findings of the explanted lung tissue; pulmonary fibrosis was the dominant feature, suggesting COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome with prolonged time supported by mechanical support may only be survivable with the use of lung transplant (Bharat, et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(574):eabe4282).

Women’s lung health

Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis

The newest in the line of modulator therapy, Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor), is expected to improve life expectancy and quality of life for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This evolution in therapy will shape how providers care for their patients, particularly women of reproductive age. Conventionally, women with significantly impaired lung function due to CF have been advised to avoid pregnancy due to potential complications for mother and baby. It is likely that now, with improved lung function while receiving Trikafta, more women will feel better equipped to attempt pregnancy.

Disaster response and global health

One step forward, two back…

No adult alive today will live to see global gender parity. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report, published December 2019, assessed four dimensions of gender inequality – health, economic opportunities, educational advancement, and political empowerment.

The report stated that despite some advances, overall global gender parity would not be reached for 99 years. The gender gap is not solely a developing nation’s problem. The US standing as the 51st in gender parity fell to 53rd during the previous 2-year period. And these numbers were before Covid COVID-19.

Disasters, including pandemics, negatively affect female subjects disproportionately. Covid COVID-19 has unmasked and exacerbated both gender and minority disparity. Global health care workers (HCW) are overwhelmingly female, exposing them to a higher risk of contagion. This risk was exceptionally high among Black, Asian, and minority ethnic HCW (Nguyen et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5[9]:E475). The gender pay gap, where women are paid 80% of their male counterparts and women of color make 63%, has led to a greater financial burden among female HCW during Covid COVID-19. Women, including HCW, provide the majority of the unpaid work, i.e., childcare, elder care, and home care. 2020 saw an unprecedented loss of women in the workplace, including health care. Both clinical practice and research have been affected. The long- term effect on women HCW careers is unknown at present. Global gross domestic product growth loss due to this decline in the female workforce is estimated at 1 trillion USD over the next decade.

Disaster and gender parity are entwined. Covid COVID-19 has revealed the persistence of inequalities that nees to be considered in future disaster planning.

Mary Jane Reed, MD, FCCP

Steering Committee Ex-Officio


 

Interstitial and diffuse lung disease

Emergence and benefits of home monitoring and telemedicine for patients with ILD

Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular monitoring with outpatient clinic visits and pulmonary function tests.

The emergence of COVID-19 forced an unprecedented transition to telemedicine and a new reliance on home monitoring. Home spirometry enables quick detection of rapidly progressive disease and is more sensitive than hospital-based spirometry in predicting prognosis (Russel, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[8]:989). Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis randomized to a home monitoring program had improved psychological wellbeing and higher patient satisfaction with individually tailored treatment decisions (Moor, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[3]:393). However, there are some inaccuracies in home monitoring. For instance, pulse oximetry is less reliable in African American patients receiving supplemental oxygen (Sjoding, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2477). It is critical to protect ILD patients from potential COVID-19 exposure given the high risk of serious complications. Telemedicine should be offered to all patients and may actually increase access to care in ILD patients, a population with disabling dyspnea and supplemental oxygen needs that requires specialist care unavailable in many geographic regions. African American patients, those older than 65, and patients with lower socioeconomic status are less willing to engage in videoconferencing (Fischer, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[10]:e2022302). It is essential that telephone visits be offered to minimize disparities in access to care. Many telemedicine platforms enable caregivers and family members to attend visits from separate locations and provide a unique opportunity to address advance care planning. In-person visits should be arranged for patients with no access to internet or telephone or those with poor medical literacy or insufficient social support to conduct a productive remote visit. Telemedicine and home monitoring have proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic and have the potential to continually increase access to and quality of care.

Rebecca Anna Gersten, MD

Steering Committee Member

Practice operations

Use of media platforms to eliminate the COVID-19 infodemic

We were shocked when we read a tweet in December 2020 from a health care worker stating, “My biggest concern is the lack of data and the quick development time. Feels like we are a bunch of guinea pigs” in reference to the new COVID-19 vaccine.

References

1. The Lancet Infectious Diseases-Editorial. The COVID-19 infodemic. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):875.

2. Tangcharoensathien V, et al. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22e19659.

3. Verified. https://shareverified.com/en/about. Accessed Feb 18, 2021.




 

Transplant

COVID-19 + lung transplant

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a dilemma for lung transplantation, with a new group of patients with refractory respiratory failure secondary to the viral illness. As transplant centers worldwide receive referrals for COVID-19 related respiratory failure, information regarding evaluation, listing, and posttransplant care continues to be published, but further research will be needed to care for this complex population. 

The first lung transplant for COVID-19 in the United States occurred at Northwestern Hospital on June 5th, 2020,and was publicized for its innovativeness. Information from their three lung transplants completed thus far includes information regarding pathologic findings of the explanted lung tissue; pulmonary fibrosis was the dominant feature, suggesting COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome with prolonged time supported by mechanical support may only be survivable with the use of lung transplant (Bharat, et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(574):eabe4282).

Women’s lung health

Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis

The newest in the line of modulator therapy, Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor), is expected to improve life expectancy and quality of life for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This evolution in therapy will shape how providers care for their patients, particularly women of reproductive age. Conventionally, women with significantly impaired lung function due to CF have been advised to avoid pregnancy due to potential complications for mother and baby. It is likely that now, with improved lung function while receiving Trikafta, more women will feel better equipped to attempt pregnancy.

Disaster response and global health

One step forward, two back…

No adult alive today will live to see global gender parity. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report, published December 2019, assessed four dimensions of gender inequality – health, economic opportunities, educational advancement, and political empowerment.

The report stated that despite some advances, overall global gender parity would not be reached for 99 years. The gender gap is not solely a developing nation’s problem. The US standing as the 51st in gender parity fell to 53rd during the previous 2-year period. And these numbers were before Covid COVID-19.

Disasters, including pandemics, negatively affect female subjects disproportionately. Covid COVID-19 has unmasked and exacerbated both gender and minority disparity. Global health care workers (HCW) are overwhelmingly female, exposing them to a higher risk of contagion. This risk was exceptionally high among Black, Asian, and minority ethnic HCW (Nguyen et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5[9]:E475). The gender pay gap, where women are paid 80% of their male counterparts and women of color make 63%, has led to a greater financial burden among female HCW during Covid COVID-19. Women, including HCW, provide the majority of the unpaid work, i.e., childcare, elder care, and home care. 2020 saw an unprecedented loss of women in the workplace, including health care. Both clinical practice and research have been affected. The long- term effect on women HCW careers is unknown at present. Global gross domestic product growth loss due to this decline in the female workforce is estimated at 1 trillion USD over the next decade.

Disaster and gender parity are entwined. Covid COVID-19 has revealed the persistence of inequalities that nees to be considered in future disaster planning.

Mary Jane Reed, MD, FCCP

Steering Committee Ex-Officio


 

Interstitial and diffuse lung disease

Emergence and benefits of home monitoring and telemedicine for patients with ILD

Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular monitoring with outpatient clinic visits and pulmonary function tests.

The emergence of COVID-19 forced an unprecedented transition to telemedicine and a new reliance on home monitoring. Home spirometry enables quick detection of rapidly progressive disease and is more sensitive than hospital-based spirometry in predicting prognosis (Russel, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[8]:989). Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis randomized to a home monitoring program had improved psychological wellbeing and higher patient satisfaction with individually tailored treatment decisions (Moor, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[3]:393). However, there are some inaccuracies in home monitoring. For instance, pulse oximetry is less reliable in African American patients receiving supplemental oxygen (Sjoding, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2477). It is critical to protect ILD patients from potential COVID-19 exposure given the high risk of serious complications. Telemedicine should be offered to all patients and may actually increase access to care in ILD patients, a population with disabling dyspnea and supplemental oxygen needs that requires specialist care unavailable in many geographic regions. African American patients, those older than 65, and patients with lower socioeconomic status are less willing to engage in videoconferencing (Fischer, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[10]:e2022302). It is essential that telephone visits be offered to minimize disparities in access to care. Many telemedicine platforms enable caregivers and family members to attend visits from separate locations and provide a unique opportunity to address advance care planning. In-person visits should be arranged for patients with no access to internet or telephone or those with poor medical literacy or insufficient social support to conduct a productive remote visit. Telemedicine and home monitoring have proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic and have the potential to continually increase access to and quality of care.

Rebecca Anna Gersten, MD

Steering Committee Member

Practice operations

Use of media platforms to eliminate the COVID-19 infodemic

We were shocked when we read a tweet in December 2020 from a health care worker stating, “My biggest concern is the lack of data and the quick development time. Feels like we are a bunch of guinea pigs” in reference to the new COVID-19 vaccine.

References

1. The Lancet Infectious Diseases-Editorial. The COVID-19 infodemic. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):875.

2. Tangcharoensathien V, et al. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22e19659.

3. Verified. https://shareverified.com/en/about. Accessed Feb 18, 2021.




 

Transplant

COVID-19 + lung transplant

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a dilemma for lung transplantation, with a new group of patients with refractory respiratory failure secondary to the viral illness. As transplant centers worldwide receive referrals for COVID-19 related respiratory failure, information regarding evaluation, listing, and posttransplant care continues to be published, but further research will be needed to care for this complex population. 

The first lung transplant for COVID-19 in the United States occurred at Northwestern Hospital on June 5th, 2020,and was publicized for its innovativeness. Information from their three lung transplants completed thus far includes information regarding pathologic findings of the explanted lung tissue; pulmonary fibrosis was the dominant feature, suggesting COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome with prolonged time supported by mechanical support may only be survivable with the use of lung transplant (Bharat, et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(574):eabe4282).

Women’s lung health

Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis

The newest in the line of modulator therapy, Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor), is expected to improve life expectancy and quality of life for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This evolution in therapy will shape how providers care for their patients, particularly women of reproductive age. Conventionally, women with significantly impaired lung function due to CF have been advised to avoid pregnancy due to potential complications for mother and baby. It is likely that now, with improved lung function while receiving Trikafta, more women will feel better equipped to attempt pregnancy.

As I write, it is 1 degree Fahrenheit and dreary in Kansas City, where I live. That’s minus 17 degrees Celsius for many of you. I hope that it is cheerier and bordering on springtime when you’re reading. You’ll understand, though, why I say Happy 2021! 2020 was a humdinger in many ways.

As I write, it is 1 degree Fahrenheit and dreary in Kansas City, where I live. That’s minus 17 degrees Celsius for many of you. I hope that it is cheerier and bordering on springtime when you’re reading. You’ll understand, though, why I say Happy 2021! 2020 was a humdinger in many ways.

As I write, it is 1 degree Fahrenheit and dreary in Kansas City, where I live. That’s minus 17 degrees Celsius for many of you. I hope that it is cheerier and bordering on springtime when you’re reading. You’ll understand, though, why I say Happy 2021! 2020 was a humdinger in many ways.