CHEST Physician

Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.

Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”

Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.

The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.

A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.

A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.

The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.

“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”

However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”

As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.

CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.

For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”

After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).

Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”

She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.

The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”

Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.

Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”

Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.

The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.

A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.

A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.

The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.

“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”

However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”

As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.

CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.

For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”

After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).

Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”

She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.

The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”

Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.

Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”

Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.

The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.

A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.

A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.

The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.

“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”

However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”

As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.

CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.

For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”

After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).

Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”

Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”

She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.

The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”

Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.

In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.

Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.

Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.

The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.

“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.

Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”

The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.

The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.

The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.

Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.

The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.

The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”

The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.

The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”

Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.

Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.

New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.

The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.

The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.

“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
 

Levels of evidence

The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.

For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”

The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.

In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.

For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:

• Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
• Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
• Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

The perils of VTE

VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.

“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”

Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”

These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
 

ASH vs. ASCO

James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.

“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.

The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.

ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.

The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.

“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.

ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.

[email protected]

New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.

The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.

The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.

“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
 

Levels of evidence

The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.

For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”

The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.

In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.

For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:

• Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
• Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
• Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

The perils of VTE

VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.

“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”

Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”

These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
 

ASH vs. ASCO

James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.

“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.

The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.

ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.

The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.

“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.

ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.

[email protected]

New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.

The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.

The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.

“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
 

Levels of evidence

The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.

For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”

The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.

In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.

For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:

• Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
• Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
• Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

The perils of VTE

VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.

“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”

Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”

These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
 

ASH vs. ASCO

James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.

“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.

The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.

ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.

The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.

“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.

ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.

[email protected]

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One dose of the novel agent, REGN1908-1909 (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) resulted in a rapid and durable reduction in cat-allergen-induced bronchoconstriction in cat-allergic subjects with mild asthma.

vladans/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The finding, from a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled study, is good news for the millions of people who are plagued by cat allergies, the investigators say.

The study, which was sponsored by Regeneron, was presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“REGN1908-1909 contains antibodies against Fel d 1, the major cat allergen, and here we show that it quickly and lastingly reduces acute bronchoconstriction in people with cat allergy,” lead author Frederic J. de Blay, MD, Strasbourg University Hospital, France, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay admitted he is “quite excited” about the results.

“This study was performed in an environmental exposure chamber, and we clearly demonstrate that these antibodies decrease the asthmatic response to cat allergen within 8 days, and that these effects last 3 months. I never saw that in my life. I was a little bit skeptical at first, so to obtain such robust results after just 8 days, after just one injection, I was very surprised,” he said.

Dr. de Blay and his team screened potential participants to make sure they were cat allergic by exposing them to cat allergen for up to 2 hours while they were in the environmental exposure chamber. To be eligible for the study, participants had to show an early asthmatic response (EAR), defined as a reduction in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎ of at least 20% from baseline.

The participants were then randomized to receive either single-dose REGN1908-1909, 600 mg, subcutaneously (n = 29 patients) or placebo (n = 27 patients) prior to cat-allergen exposure in the controlled environmental chamber.

Dr. de Blay developed the chamber used in the study: the ALYATEC environmental exposure chamber.

“The chamber is 60 meters square, or 150 cubic meters, and can accommodate 20 patients. We are able to nebulize cat allergen, mice allergen, or whatever we wish to study so we can standardize the exposure. We can control the particle size and the amount so we know the exact amount of allergen that the patient has been exposed to,” he explained.

To test the efficacy of REGN1908-1909 in reducing acute bronchoconstriction, or EAR, the researchers measured FEV₁ at baseline, and on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 in both groups. During each exposure, measurements were taken every 10 minutes for periods that lasted up to 4 hours.

They found that the probability of remaining in the chamber with no asthmatic response was substantially elevated in the group treated with REGN1908-1909.

Compared with placebo, REGN1908-1909 significantly increased the median time to EAR, from 51 minutes at baseline to more than 4 hours on day 8, (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; P < .0083), day 29 (HR, 0.24; P < .0001), day 57 (HR, 0.45; P = .0222), and day 85 (HR, 0.27; P = .0003).

The FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC) was also better with REGN1908-1909 than with placebo at day 8 (15.2% vs. 1.6%; P < .001). And a single dose reduced skin-test reactivity to cat allergen at 1 week, which persisted for up to 4 months.

In addition, participants who received REGN1908-1909 were able to tolerate a threefold higher amount of the cat allergen than those who received placebo (P = .003).

“We initially gave 40 nanograms of cat allergen, and then 8 days later they were able to stay longer in the chamber and inhale more of the allergen, to almost triple the amount they had originally been given. That 40 nanograms is very close to real world exposure,” Dr. de Blay noted.

Regeneron plans to start a phase 3 trial soon, he reported.
 

Promising results

“The study is well designed and shows a reduction in drop of FEV₁ in response to cat allergen provocation and a decreased AUC in cat SPT response over 4 months,” Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Cincinnati, said in an interview.

“These are very promising results, which show that REGN1908-1909 can be a novel treatment for cat-induced asthma, which is often the only sensitization patients have. And they love their cats – one-third of the U.S. population has a cat and one-third has a dog, and 50% have both,” noted Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study.

“This novel study used our scientific knowledge of the cat allergen itself to design a targeted antibody-based treatment that demonstrates significant benefit even after the first shot,” added Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“This strategy has the potential to revolutionize not only our treatment of common environmental allergies but also other allergic diseases with well-described triggers, such as food and drug allergy,” Dr. Kim, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Dr. de Blay reported a financial relationship with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which sponsored the study. Dr. Bernstein and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases in the United States totaled 64,264 for the week of Feb. 19-25, down from 70,640 the week before. That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.

Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.

[email protected]

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases in the United States totaled 64,264 for the week of Feb. 19-25, down from 70,640 the week before. That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.

Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.

[email protected]

The number of new COVID-19 cases in children declined for the sixth consecutive week, but the drop was the smallest yet, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New child cases in the United States totaled 64,264 for the week of Feb. 19-25, down from 70,640 the week before. That drop of almost 6,400 cases, or 9.0%, falls short of the declines recorded in any the previous 5 weeks, which ranged from 18,000 to 46,000 cases and 15.3% to 28.7%, based on data from the heath departments of 49 states (excluding New York), as well as the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The total number of children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is up to almost 3.17 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all age groups. That cumulative proportion was unchanged from the previous week, which has occurred only three other times over the course of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

Despite the 6-week decline in new cases, however, the cumulative rate continued to climb, rising from 4,124 cases per 100,000 children to 4,209 for the week of Feb. 19-25. The states, not surprisingly, fall on both sides of that national tally. The lowest rates can be found in Hawaii (1,040 per 100,000 children), Vermont (2,111 per 100,000), and Maine (2,394), while the highest rates were recorded in North Dakota (8,580), Tennessee (7,851), and Rhode Island (7,223), the AAP and CHA said.

The number of new child deaths, nine, stayed in single digits for a second consecutive week, although it was up from six deaths reported a week earlier. Total COVID-19–related deaths in children now number 256, which represents just 0.06% of coronavirus deaths for all ages among the 43 states (along with New York City and Guam) reporting such data.

Among those jurisdictions, Texas (40), Arizona (27), and New York City (23) have reported the most deaths in children, while nine states and the District of Columbia have reported no deaths yet, the AAP and CHA noted.

[email protected]

What happened to Hasan Gokal, MD, should stick painfully in the craws of all physicians. It should serve as a call to action, because Dr. Gokal is sitting at home today without a job and under threat of further legal action while we continue about our day.

Dr. Gokal’s “crime” is that he vaccinated 10 strangers and acquaintances with soon-to-expire doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. He drove to the homes of some in the dark of night and injected others on his Sugar Land, Texas, lawn. He spent hours in a frantic search for willing recipients to beat the expiration clock. With minutes to spare, he gave the last dose to his at-risk wife, who has symptomatic pulmonary sarcoidosis, but whose age meant she did not fall into a vaccine priority tier.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Gokal’s wife was hesitant, afraid he might get into trouble. But why would she be hesitant? He wasn’t doing anything immoral. Perhaps she knew how far physicians have fallen and how bitterly they both could suffer.

In Barren County, Ky., where I live, a state of emergency was declared by our judge executive because of inclement weather. This directive allows our emergency management to “waive procedures and formalities otherwise required by the law.” It’s too bad that the same courtesy was not afforded to Dr. Gokal in Texas. It’s a shame that ice and snow didn’t drive his actions. Perhaps that would have protected him against the harsh criticism. Rather, it was his oath to patients and dedication to his fellow humans that motivated him, and for that, he was made to suffer.

Dr. Gokal was right to think that pouring the last 10 vaccine doses down the toilet would be an egregious act. But he was wrong in thinking his decision to find takers for the vaccine would be viewed as expedient. Instead, he was accused of graft and even nepotism. And there is the rub. That he was fired and charged with the theft of $137 worth of vaccines says everything about how physicians are treated in the year 2021. Dr. Gokal’s lawyer says the charge carried a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison and a fine of nearly $4,000.

Thank God a sage judge threw out the case and “rebuked” the office of District Attorney Kim Ogg. That hasn’t stopped her from threatening to bring the case to a grand jury. That threat invites anyone faced with the same scenario to flush the extra vaccine doses into the septic system. It encourages us to choose the toilet handle to avoid a mug shot.

And we can’t ignore the racial slant to this story. The Times reported that Dr. Gokal asked the officials, “Are you suggesting that there were too many Indian names in this group?”

“Exactly” was the answer. Let that sink in.

None of this would have happened 20 years ago. Back then, no one would have questioned the wisdom a physician gains from all our years of training and residency. In an age when anyone who conducts an office visit is now called “doctor,” respect for the letters “MD” has been leveled. We physicians have lost our autonomy and been cowed into submission.

But whatever his profession, Hasan Gokal was fired for being a good human. Today, the sun rose on 10 individuals who now enjoy better protection against a deadly pandemic. They include a bed-bound nonagenarian. A woman in her 80s with dementia. A mother with a child who uses a ventilator. All now have antibodies against SARS-CoV2 because of the tireless actions of Dr. Gokal.

Yet Dr. Gokal’s future is uncertain. Will we help him, or will we leave him to the wolves? In an email exchange with his lawyer’s office, I learned that Dr. Gokal has received offers of employment but is unable to entertain them because the actions by the Harris County District Attorney triggered an automatic review by the Texas Medical Board. A GoFundMe page was launched, but an appreciative Dr. Gokal stated publicly that he’d rather the money go to a needy charity.

 In the last paragraph of the Times article, Dr. Gokal asks, “How can I take it back?” referencing stories about “the Pakistani doctor in Houston who stole all those vaccines.”

Let’s help him take back his story. In helping him, perhaps we can take back a little control. We could start with letters of support that could be mailed to his lawyer, Paul Doyle, Esq., of Houston, or tweet, respectfully of course, to the district attorney @Kimoggforda.

We can also let the Harris County Public Health Department in Houston know what we think of their actions.

On Martin Luther King Day, Kim Ogg, the district attorney who charged Dr. Gokal, tweeted MLK’s famous quote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Let that motivate us to action.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. In addition to opinion writing, she enjoys spending time with her husband, daughters and parents, and sidelines as a backing vocalist for local rock bands. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

What happened to Hasan Gokal, MD, should stick painfully in the craws of all physicians. It should serve as a call to action, because Dr. Gokal is sitting at home today without a job and under threat of further legal action while we continue about our day.

Dr. Gokal’s “crime” is that he vaccinated 10 strangers and acquaintances with soon-to-expire doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. He drove to the homes of some in the dark of night and injected others on his Sugar Land, Texas, lawn. He spent hours in a frantic search for willing recipients to beat the expiration clock. With minutes to spare, he gave the last dose to his at-risk wife, who has symptomatic pulmonary sarcoidosis, but whose age meant she did not fall into a vaccine priority tier.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Gokal’s wife was hesitant, afraid he might get into trouble. But why would she be hesitant? He wasn’t doing anything immoral. Perhaps she knew how far physicians have fallen and how bitterly they both could suffer.

In Barren County, Ky., where I live, a state of emergency was declared by our judge executive because of inclement weather. This directive allows our emergency management to “waive procedures and formalities otherwise required by the law.” It’s too bad that the same courtesy was not afforded to Dr. Gokal in Texas. It’s a shame that ice and snow didn’t drive his actions. Perhaps that would have protected him against the harsh criticism. Rather, it was his oath to patients and dedication to his fellow humans that motivated him, and for that, he was made to suffer.

Dr. Gokal was right to think that pouring the last 10 vaccine doses down the toilet would be an egregious act. But he was wrong in thinking his decision to find takers for the vaccine would be viewed as expedient. Instead, he was accused of graft and even nepotism. And there is the rub. That he was fired and charged with the theft of $137 worth of vaccines says everything about how physicians are treated in the year 2021. Dr. Gokal’s lawyer says the charge carried a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison and a fine of nearly $4,000.

Thank God a sage judge threw out the case and “rebuked” the office of District Attorney Kim Ogg. That hasn’t stopped her from threatening to bring the case to a grand jury. That threat invites anyone faced with the same scenario to flush the extra vaccine doses into the septic system. It encourages us to choose the toilet handle to avoid a mug shot.

And we can’t ignore the racial slant to this story. The Times reported that Dr. Gokal asked the officials, “Are you suggesting that there were too many Indian names in this group?”

“Exactly” was the answer. Let that sink in.

None of this would have happened 20 years ago. Back then, no one would have questioned the wisdom a physician gains from all our years of training and residency. In an age when anyone who conducts an office visit is now called “doctor,” respect for the letters “MD” has been leveled. We physicians have lost our autonomy and been cowed into submission.

But whatever his profession, Hasan Gokal was fired for being a good human. Today, the sun rose on 10 individuals who now enjoy better protection against a deadly pandemic. They include a bed-bound nonagenarian. A woman in her 80s with dementia. A mother with a child who uses a ventilator. All now have antibodies against SARS-CoV2 because of the tireless actions of Dr. Gokal.

Yet Dr. Gokal’s future is uncertain. Will we help him, or will we leave him to the wolves? In an email exchange with his lawyer’s office, I learned that Dr. Gokal has received offers of employment but is unable to entertain them because the actions by the Harris County District Attorney triggered an automatic review by the Texas Medical Board. A GoFundMe page was launched, but an appreciative Dr. Gokal stated publicly that he’d rather the money go to a needy charity.

 In the last paragraph of the Times article, Dr. Gokal asks, “How can I take it back?” referencing stories about “the Pakistani doctor in Houston who stole all those vaccines.”

Let’s help him take back his story. In helping him, perhaps we can take back a little control. We could start with letters of support that could be mailed to his lawyer, Paul Doyle, Esq., of Houston, or tweet, respectfully of course, to the district attorney @Kimoggforda.

We can also let the Harris County Public Health Department in Houston know what we think of their actions.

On Martin Luther King Day, Kim Ogg, the district attorney who charged Dr. Gokal, tweeted MLK’s famous quote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Let that motivate us to action.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. In addition to opinion writing, she enjoys spending time with her husband, daughters and parents, and sidelines as a backing vocalist for local rock bands. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

What happened to Hasan Gokal, MD, should stick painfully in the craws of all physicians. It should serve as a call to action, because Dr. Gokal is sitting at home today without a job and under threat of further legal action while we continue about our day.

Dr. Gokal’s “crime” is that he vaccinated 10 strangers and acquaintances with soon-to-expire doses of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. He drove to the homes of some in the dark of night and injected others on his Sugar Land, Texas, lawn. He spent hours in a frantic search for willing recipients to beat the expiration clock. With minutes to spare, he gave the last dose to his at-risk wife, who has symptomatic pulmonary sarcoidosis, but whose age meant she did not fall into a vaccine priority tier.

According to the New York Times, Dr. Gokal’s wife was hesitant, afraid he might get into trouble. But why would she be hesitant? He wasn’t doing anything immoral. Perhaps she knew how far physicians have fallen and how bitterly they both could suffer.

In Barren County, Ky., where I live, a state of emergency was declared by our judge executive because of inclement weather. This directive allows our emergency management to “waive procedures and formalities otherwise required by the law.” It’s too bad that the same courtesy was not afforded to Dr. Gokal in Texas. It’s a shame that ice and snow didn’t drive his actions. Perhaps that would have protected him against the harsh criticism. Rather, it was his oath to patients and dedication to his fellow humans that motivated him, and for that, he was made to suffer.

Dr. Gokal was right to think that pouring the last 10 vaccine doses down the toilet would be an egregious act. But he was wrong in thinking his decision to find takers for the vaccine would be viewed as expedient. Instead, he was accused of graft and even nepotism. And there is the rub. That he was fired and charged with the theft of $137 worth of vaccines says everything about how physicians are treated in the year 2021. Dr. Gokal’s lawyer says the charge carried a maximum penalty of 1 year in prison and a fine of nearly $4,000.

Thank God a sage judge threw out the case and “rebuked” the office of District Attorney Kim Ogg. That hasn’t stopped her from threatening to bring the case to a grand jury. That threat invites anyone faced with the same scenario to flush the extra vaccine doses into the septic system. It encourages us to choose the toilet handle to avoid a mug shot.

And we can’t ignore the racial slant to this story. The Times reported that Dr. Gokal asked the officials, “Are you suggesting that there were too many Indian names in this group?”

“Exactly” was the answer. Let that sink in.

None of this would have happened 20 years ago. Back then, no one would have questioned the wisdom a physician gains from all our years of training and residency. In an age when anyone who conducts an office visit is now called “doctor,” respect for the letters “MD” has been leveled. We physicians have lost our autonomy and been cowed into submission.

But whatever his profession, Hasan Gokal was fired for being a good human. Today, the sun rose on 10 individuals who now enjoy better protection against a deadly pandemic. They include a bed-bound nonagenarian. A woman in her 80s with dementia. A mother with a child who uses a ventilator. All now have antibodies against SARS-CoV2 because of the tireless actions of Dr. Gokal.

Yet Dr. Gokal’s future is uncertain. Will we help him, or will we leave him to the wolves? In an email exchange with his lawyer’s office, I learned that Dr. Gokal has received offers of employment but is unable to entertain them because the actions by the Harris County District Attorney triggered an automatic review by the Texas Medical Board. A GoFundMe page was launched, but an appreciative Dr. Gokal stated publicly that he’d rather the money go to a needy charity.

 In the last paragraph of the Times article, Dr. Gokal asks, “How can I take it back?” referencing stories about “the Pakistani doctor in Houston who stole all those vaccines.”

Let’s help him take back his story. In helping him, perhaps we can take back a little control. We could start with letters of support that could be mailed to his lawyer, Paul Doyle, Esq., of Houston, or tweet, respectfully of course, to the district attorney @Kimoggforda.

We can also let the Harris County Public Health Department in Houston know what we think of their actions.

On Martin Luther King Day, Kim Ogg, the district attorney who charged Dr. Gokal, tweeted MLK’s famous quote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Let that motivate us to action.

Melissa Walton-Shirley, MD, is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. In addition to opinion writing, she enjoys spending time with her husband, daughters and parents, and sidelines as a backing vocalist for local rock bands. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Among individuals with asthma and allergies who use cannabis, more than half said they aren’t willing to discuss their use of cannabis with their doctor and their doctor doesn’t ask, according to recent research at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

VladK213/Getty Images

In an online survey of respondents with asthma and allergies in the Allergy & Asthma Network, 88 of 489 (18.0%) reported cannabis use. Of these respondents, 37.5% said they wanted to discuss their cannabis use with their doctor, 51.1% said they would not want to, and 11.4% reported they were unsure. In addition, 40.9% of respondents said their doctor inquired about cannabis use, while 51.1% said their doctor did not bring up cannabis use at all, either through a verbal discussion or on an intake form.

To date, there has not been much research on use of cannabis among patients with allergies and asthma, Joanna S. Zeiger, MS, PhD, of the Canna Research Foundation in Boulder, Colo., said in her presentation. “This is a group with whom route of administration could have broad adverse effects. Smoking or vaping cannabis in this population could lead to increased symptoms of cough and wheeze, as well as increased use of asthma medications and exacerbations of their disease.”

Dr. Zeiger and colleagues recruited 489 respondents for the AAN Pain, Exercise, and Cannabis Experience Survey study through social media channels between May 2020 and September 2020. In the survey, the researchers asked questions about the nature of the respondent’s cannabis use (medical, recreational, or both), the types of cannabinoids used (tetrahydrocannabinol [THC], cannabidiol [CBD], or both), the route of administration (capsule, edible, oil/tincture, smoke, spray, topical, or vaporizer), and subjective effects. Most of the respondents reported using both THC and CBD, with smoking, edibles, and vaping being the most comment route of administration.

Of the 88 respondents who said they currently used cannabis, 60.2% were aged less than 50 years, 72.4% were women, and 71.6% were White. A majority of respondents had been using cannabis for 3 or more years (54.5%) , used it less than one time per day (60.2%), and used it for pain (68.2%). Current asthma was reported in 51 respondents (58.0%), and 39.2% had uncontrolled asthma. Half of those respondents with uncontrolled asthma reported smoking cannabis, and 25.0% reported coughing because of cannabis. Both THC and CBD were used by 47.7% of respondents; 33% reported THC use alone, while 19.3% used CBD alone.

Reported effects of cannabis use

The most common positive effects of using cannabis reported among respondents were that it helped with sleep (66 respondents), calmed them down (60 respondents), reduced pain (60 respondents), or decreased anxiety (59 respondents). Many respondents who reported positive effects were using both THC and CBD. For example, respondents who reported using cannabinoids for calming, 46.7% reported using both, compared with 36.7% who used THC only and 16.7% who used CBD only. Among respondents who reported that cannabis helped them sleep, 51.5% used both THC and CBD.

Regarding adverse effects, there were no significant differences based on use of THC or CBD, but 31.9% of respondents who said they smoked cannabis and 4.9% of respondents who used cannabis through a route of administration that wasn’t smoking reported they coughed with their cannabis use (P < .001). No respondents reported anaphyalaxis, although, among individuals who did not use cannabis, 2.5% reported a cannabis allergy.
 

‘Cannabis allergy is real’

Commenting on the research, Gordon L. Sussman MD, allergist, clinical immunologist, and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said the survey is a thorough questionnaire that is likely representative of attitudes about cannabis in the United States and countries where cannabis is not broadly legalized.

Cannabis allergy, however, is not uncommon, and “is something that people should be aware of,” he said. “Cannabis IgE allergy is real, is probably fairly common, and is something that [clinicians] should be asking about routinely.”

One limitation of the research was not knowing the number of people who declined to answer the survey, as there may be a bias in the results toward people who want to answer the questions, compared with those who did not want to answer. “When you do a survey, only a certain number of people are going to answer, and [you also want input from] people that don’t answer,” Dr. Sussman said.

Dr. Sussman acknowledged it can be difficult to get patients to admit cannabis use, even in countries like Canada where it is legal. Surveys like the one administered by Dr. Zeiger and colleagues are “the first step” to getting updated assessments of cannabis attitudes and recommendations. “The next step is doing an international survey, so you get different countries’ viewpoints and perspectives,” he said.

This study was supported by the Allergy & Asthma Network and the Canna Research Foundation. Three authors are affiliated with the Canna Research Foundation. Dr. Sussman reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sussman participates in the International Cannabis Allergy KAP Collaboration, a group founded by one of the coauthors, William Silvers, MD, but Dr. Sussman was not involved with this study.

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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