CHEST Physician

A new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.

According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.

The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
 

UN Targets Tuberculosis

In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.

The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.

“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.

Investments Yield Returns

To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.

For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.

The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”

The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.

Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.

Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.

The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.

Emerging Concerns

Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.

Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.

According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.

The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
 

UN Targets Tuberculosis

In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.

The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.

“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.

Investments Yield Returns

To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.

For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.

The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”

The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.

Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.

Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.

The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.

Emerging Concerns

Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.

Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A new study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in addition to providing significant improvements in public health, investment in the diagnosis and prevention of tuberculosis also generates economic benefits.

According to a survey conducted by governments and researchers from Brazil, Georgia, Kenya, and South Africa, even modest increases in funding for measures against tuberculosis can bring gains. Every $1 invested produces returns of as much as $39, it found.

The findings may remind governments and policymakers about the importance of investing in public health policies. According to the WHO, the study “provides strong economic arguments” about the true costs of tuberculosis and proves the benefits of increasing funding to accelerate the diagnosis and preventive treatment of the disease.
 

UN Targets Tuberculosis

In September 2023, during the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, following a widespread worsening of disease indicators because of the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders signed a declaration committing to the expansion of efforts to combat tuberculosis during the next 5 years. The current WHO study was developed to provide a road map for the implementation of key measures against the disease.

The survey highlights two fundamental actions: The expansion of screening, especially in populations considered more vulnerable, and the provision of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT), which entails administering drugs to people who have been exposed to the disease but have not yet developed it.

“TPT is a proven and effective intervention to prevent the development of tuberculosis among exposed people, reducing the risk of developing the disease by about 60%-90% compared with individuals who did not receive it,” the document emphasized.

Investments Yield Returns

To achieve the necessary coverage levels, the study estimated that Brazil would need to increase annual per capita investment by $0.28 (about R$1.41) between 2024 and 2050. Brazilian society, in turn, would receive a return of $11 (R$55.27) for every dollar invested.

For South Africa, whose per capita investment increase is estimated at $1.10 per year, the return would be even more significant: $39 for every dollar allocated.

The WHO emphasized that funding for combating the disease is much lower than the value of the damage it causes to nations. “Tuberculosis has high costs for society. Only a small proportion of these costs go directly to the health system (ranging from 1.7% in South Africa to 7.8% in Kenya). Most are costs for patients and society.”

The study projected that between 2024 and 2050, the total cost of tuberculosis to Brazilian society would be $81.2 billion, with an average annual value of $3.01 billion. This figure represents, in 2024, 0.16% of the country’s gross domestic product.

Achieving screening and preventive treatment goals in Brazil would lead to a reduction of as much as 18% in the national incidence of the disease, as well as 1.9 million fewer deaths, between 2024 and 2050.

Although treatable and preventable, tuberculosis remains the leading cause of death from infectious agents worldwide. It is estimated that over 1.3 million people died from the disease in 2022.

The document provides the “health and economic justification for investing in evidence-based interventions recommended by WHO in tuberculosis screening and prevention,” according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

“Today we have the knowledge, tools, and political commitment that can end this age-old disease that continues to be one of the leading causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide,” he added.

Emerging Concerns

Although the WHO highlighted the global increase in access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment in 2022, which coincided with the recovery of healthcare systems in several countries after the beginning of the pandemic, it emphasized that the implementation of preventive treatment for exposed individuals and high-vulnerability populations remains slow.

Another concern is the increase in drug resistance. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis is considered a public health crisis. It is estimated that about 410,000 people had multidrug-resistant tuberculosis or rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in 2022, but only two of every five patients had access to treatment.This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Paxlovid does not significantly alleviate symptoms of COVID-19 compared with placebo among nonhospitalized adults, a new study published April 3 in The New England Journal of Medicine found. 

The results suggest that the drug, a combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, may not be particularly helpful for patients who are not at high risk for severe COVID-19. However, although the rate of hospitalization and death from any cause was low overall, the group that received Paxlovid had a reduced rate compared with people in the placebo group, according to the researchers. 

“Clearly, the benefit observed among unvaccinated high-risk persons does not extend to those at lower risk for severe COVID-19,” Rajesh T. Gandhi, MD, and Martin Hirsch, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. “This result supports guidelines that recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir only for persons who are at high risk for disease progression.”

The time from onset to relief of COVID-19 symptoms — including cough, shortness of breath, body aches, and chills — did not differ significantly between the two study groups, the researchers reported. The median time to sustained alleviation of symptoms was 12 days for the Paxlovid group compared with 13 days in the placebo group (P = .60).

However, the phase 2/3 trial found a 57.6% relative reduction in the risk for hospitalizations or death among people who took Paxlovid and were vaccinated but were at high risk for poor outcomes, according to Jennifer Hammond, PhD, head of antiviral development for Pfizer, which makes the drug, and the corresponding author on the study.

Paxlovid has “an increasing body of evidence supporting the strong clinical value of the treatment in preventing hospitalization and death among eligible patients across age groups, vaccination status, and predominant variants,” Dr. Hammond said. 

She and her colleagues analyzed data from 1250 adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Participants were fully vaccinated and had a high risk for progression to severe disease or were never vaccinated or had not been in the previous year and had no risk factors for progression to severe disease.

More than half of participants were women, 78.5% were White and 41.4% identified as Hispanic or Latinx. Almost three quarters underwent randomization within 3 days of the start of symptoms, and a little over half had previously received a COVID-19 vaccination. Almost half had one risk factor for severe illness, the most common of these being hypertension (12.3%). 

In a subgroup analysis of high-risk participants, hospitalization or death occurred in 0.9% of patients in the Paxlovid group and 2.2% in the placebo group (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.7). 

The study’s limitations include that the statistical analysis of COVID-19–related hospitalizations or death from any cause was only descriptive, “because the results for the primary efficacy end point were not significant,” the authors wrote. 

Participants who were vaccinated and at high risk were also enrolled regardless of when they had last had a vaccine dose. Furthermore, Paxlovid has a telltale taste, which may have affected the blinding. Finally, the trial was started when the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was predominant.

Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch pointed out that only 5% of participants in the trial were older than 65 years and that other than risk factors such as obesity and smoking, just 2% of people had heart or lung disease. 

“As with many medical interventions, there is likely to be a gradient of benefit for nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, with the patients at highest risk for progression most likely to derive the greatest benefit,” Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Hirsch wrote in the editorial. “Thus, it appears reasonable to recommend nirmatrelvir–ritonavir primarily for the treatment of COVID-19 in older patients (particularly those ≥ 65 years of age), those who are immunocompromised, and those who have conditions that substantially increase the risk of severe COVID-19, regardless of previous vaccination or infection status.”

The study was supported by Pfizer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

CHEST

Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common cause of hospital-related morbidity in critically ill patients. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.

In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.¹ Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.

In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.² There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.

In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.³ There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.

These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.

References

1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.

2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.

3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.

CHEST

Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common cause of hospital-related morbidity in critically ill patients. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.

In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.¹ Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.

In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.² There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.

In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.³ There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.

These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.

References

1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.

2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.

3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.

CHEST

Chest Infections and Disaster Response Network

Chest Infections Section

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common cause of hospital-related morbidity in critically ill patients. The efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in the prevention of VAP has been the subject of several studies in recent years. Three large randomized controlled trials, all published since late 2022, have investigated whether antibiotics can prevent VAP and the optimal method of antibiotic administration.

In the AMIKINHAL trial, patients intubated for at least 72 hours in 19 ICUs in France received inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg/kg/day for 3 days.¹ Compared with placebo, there was a statistically significant, 7% absolute risk reduction in rate of VAP at 28 days.

In the SUDDICU trial, patients suspected to be intubated for at least 48 hours in 19 ICUs in Australia received a combination of oral paste and gastric suspension containing colistin, tobramycin, and nystatin every 6 hours along with 4 days of intravenous antibiotics.² There was no difference in the primary outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality; however, there was a statistically significant, 12% reduction in the isolation of antibiotic-resistant organisms in cultures.

In the PROPHY-VAP trial, patients with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS ] ≤12) intubated for at least 48 hours in 9 ICUs in France received a single dose of intravenous ceftriaxone (2 g) within 12 hours of intubation.³ There was an 18% absolute risk reduction in VAP from days 2 to 7 post-ventilation.

These trials, involving distinct patient populations and interventions, indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce VAP risk under specific circumstances, but its effect on overall outcomes is still uncertain. The understanding of prophylactic antibiotics in VAP prevention is rapidly evolving.

References

1. Ehrmann S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(22):2052-2062.

2. Myburgh JA, et al. JAMA. 2022;328(19):1911-1921.

3. Dahyot-Fizelier C, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;S2213-2600(23):00471-X.

In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.

Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.

Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing 

Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.

The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.

For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.

Resistance and Worse Outcomes

The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).

The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.

Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.

They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.

“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.

Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.

Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing 

Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.

The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.

For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.

Resistance and Worse Outcomes

The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).

The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.

Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.

They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.

“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2022, more than 78,000 new cases of tuberculosis (TB) were reported in Brazil, with an incidence of 36.3 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. According to researchers from the Regional Prospective Observational Research for Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil consortium, the country could improve the control of this infection if all patients were subjected to a sensitivity test capable of early detection of resistance not only to rifampicin, but also to isoniazid, before starting treatment. A study by the consortium published this year in Open Forum Infectious Diseases found that monoresistance to isoniazid predicted unfavorable outcomes at the national level.

Isoniazid is part of the first-choice therapeutic regimen for patients with pulmonary TB. The regimen also includes rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol. According to Bruno Andrade, MD, PhD, Afrânio Kritski, MD, PhD, and biotechnologist Mariana Araújo Pereira, PhD, researchers from RePORT International and RePORT-Brazil, this regimen is used during the intensive phase of treatment, which usually lasts for 2 months. It is followed by a maintenance phase of another 4 months, during which isoniazid and rifampicin continue to be administered. When monoresistance to isoniazid is detected, however, the recommendation is to use a regimen containing a quinolone instead of isoniazid.

Suboptimal Sensitivity Testing 

Since 2015, Brazil’s Ministry of Health has recommended sensitivity testing for all suspected TB cases. In practice, however, this approach is not carried out in the ideal manner. The three researchers told the Medscape Portuguese edition that, according to data from the National Notifiable Diseases Information System (Sinan) of the Ministry of Health, culture testing is conducted in about 30% of cases. Sensitivity testing to identify resistance to first-line drugs (rifampicin, isoniazid, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide) and second-line drugs (quinolone and amikacin) is performed in only 12% of cases.

The initiative of the RePORT-Brazil group analyzed 21,197 TB cases registered in Sinan between June 2015 and June 2019 and identified a rate of monoresistance to isoniazid of 1.4%.

For the researchers, the problem of monoresistance to isoniazid in Brazil is still underestimated. This underestimation results from the infrequent performance of culture and sensitivity testing to detect resistance to first- and second-line drugs and because the XPERT MTB RIF test, which detects only rifampicin resistance, is still used.

Resistance and Worse Outcomes

The study also showed that the frequency of unfavorable outcomes in antituberculosis treatment (death or therapeutic failure) was significantly higher among patients with monoresistance to isoniazid (9.1% vs 3.05%).

The finding serves as a warning about the importance of increasing the administration of sensitivity tests to detect resistance to drugs used in tuberculosis treatment, including isoniazid.

Testing sensitivity to rifampicin and isoniazid before starting treatment could transform tuberculosis control in Brazil, allowing for more targeted and effective treatments from the outset, said the researchers. “This not only increases the chances of successful individual treatment but also helps prevent the transmission of resistant strains and develop a more accurate understanding of drug resistance trends,” they emphasized.

They pointed out, however, that implementing this testing in the Unified Health System depends on improvements in resource allocation, coordination between the national TB program and state and municipal programs, and improvements in infrastructure and the technical staff of the Central Public Health Laboratories.

“Although the initial cost is considerable, these investments can be offset by long-term savings resulting from the reduction in the use of more expensive and prolonged treatments for resistant tuberculosis,” said the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHEST

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

In patients with decompensated cirrhosis, there are multiple intrahepatic and extrahepatic factors contributing to hemodynamic alterations at baseline, including endothelial cell dysfunction, hepatic stellate cell activation promoting increase in vasoconstrictors, decrease in vasodilators, and angiogenesis leading to worsening of portal hypertension. Increased resistance to hepatic blood flow leads to increased production of nitric oxide and other vasodilators leading to splanchnic vasodilation, decreased effective blood volume, activation of the renin angiotensin system, sodium, and water retention. In addition to portal hypertension and splanchnic vasodilation, there is a decrease in systemic vascular resistance and hyperdynamic circulation with increased cardiac output. As cirrhosis progresses to the decompensated stage, patients may develop cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, characterized by impaired cardiac response to stress, manifesting as systolic and diastolic dysfunction, and electrophysiological abnormalities such as QT prolongation leading to hypotension and dysregulated response to fluid resuscitation.

CHEST

Early recognition of septic shock in these patients can be challenging when using traditional criteria due to their baseline hypotension, tachycardia, systemic vasodilation, and propensity for volume overload with fluid resuscitation. Elevated lactate levels in acutely ill patients are an independent risk factor for mortality in patients with cirrhosis. However, lactate levels >2mmol/L need not necessarily define sepsis in these patients, as these patients have decreased lactate clearance. Understanding the intricate interplay between the cardiac pump, vascular tone, and afterload is essential in managing shock in these individuals. Aggressive volume resuscitation may not be well tolerated, emphasizing the need for frequent hemodynamic assessments and prompt initiation of vasopressors when indicated.

CHEST

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

In patients with decompensated cirrhosis, there are multiple intrahepatic and extrahepatic factors contributing to hemodynamic alterations at baseline, including endothelial cell dysfunction, hepatic stellate cell activation promoting increase in vasoconstrictors, decrease in vasodilators, and angiogenesis leading to worsening of portal hypertension. Increased resistance to hepatic blood flow leads to increased production of nitric oxide and other vasodilators leading to splanchnic vasodilation, decreased effective blood volume, activation of the renin angiotensin system, sodium, and water retention. In addition to portal hypertension and splanchnic vasodilation, there is a decrease in systemic vascular resistance and hyperdynamic circulation with increased cardiac output. As cirrhosis progresses to the decompensated stage, patients may develop cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, characterized by impaired cardiac response to stress, manifesting as systolic and diastolic dysfunction, and electrophysiological abnormalities such as QT prolongation leading to hypotension and dysregulated response to fluid resuscitation.

CHEST

Early recognition of septic shock in these patients can be challenging when using traditional criteria due to their baseline hypotension, tachycardia, systemic vasodilation, and propensity for volume overload with fluid resuscitation. Elevated lactate levels in acutely ill patients are an independent risk factor for mortality in patients with cirrhosis. However, lactate levels >2mmol/L need not necessarily define sepsis in these patients, as these patients have decreased lactate clearance. Understanding the intricate interplay between the cardiac pump, vascular tone, and afterload is essential in managing shock in these individuals. Aggressive volume resuscitation may not be well tolerated, emphasizing the need for frequent hemodynamic assessments and prompt initiation of vasopressors when indicated.

CHEST

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

In patients with decompensated cirrhosis, there are multiple intrahepatic and extrahepatic factors contributing to hemodynamic alterations at baseline, including endothelial cell dysfunction, hepatic stellate cell activation promoting increase in vasoconstrictors, decrease in vasodilators, and angiogenesis leading to worsening of portal hypertension. Increased resistance to hepatic blood flow leads to increased production of nitric oxide and other vasodilators leading to splanchnic vasodilation, decreased effective blood volume, activation of the renin angiotensin system, sodium, and water retention. In addition to portal hypertension and splanchnic vasodilation, there is a decrease in systemic vascular resistance and hyperdynamic circulation with increased cardiac output. As cirrhosis progresses to the decompensated stage, patients may develop cirrhotic cardiomyopathy, characterized by impaired cardiac response to stress, manifesting as systolic and diastolic dysfunction, and electrophysiological abnormalities such as QT prolongation leading to hypotension and dysregulated response to fluid resuscitation.

CHEST

Early recognition of septic shock in these patients can be challenging when using traditional criteria due to their baseline hypotension, tachycardia, systemic vasodilation, and propensity for volume overload with fluid resuscitation. Elevated lactate levels in acutely ill patients are an independent risk factor for mortality in patients with cirrhosis. However, lactate levels >2mmol/L need not necessarily define sepsis in these patients, as these patients have decreased lactate clearance. Understanding the intricate interplay between the cardiac pump, vascular tone, and afterload is essential in managing shock in these individuals. Aggressive volume resuscitation may not be well tolerated, emphasizing the need for frequent hemodynamic assessments and prompt initiation of vasopressors when indicated.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Lung Transplant Section

Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients (LTRs), accounting for around 40% of deaths.¹ LTRs are typically maintained on a three-drug immunosuppressive regimen—a calcineurin inhibitor, antimetabolite agent, and corticosteroid—in order to prevent rejection. Strong randomized controlled trial-generated evidence guiding the choice of immunosuppressive therapy for LTRs is generally lacking.

CHEST

A recent large, multicentered, randomized controlled trial in Scandinavia compared outcomes between once daily extended-release tacrolimus and twice daily cyclosporin.² The target trough for cyclosporin was 250 to 300 ng/mL (0 to 3 months), 200 to 250 ng/mL (3 to 6 months), 150 to 200 ng/mL (6 to 12 months), and 100 to 150 ng/mL beyond 12 months. The trough target for tacrolimus was 10 to 14 ng/mL (0 to 3 months), 8 to 12 ng/mL (3 to 6 months), 8 to 10 ng/mL (6 to 12 months), and 6 to 8 ng/mL beyond 12 months.

CHEST

The study demonstrated that immunosuppressive regimens containing tacrolimus significantly reduced incidence of CLAD diagnosis at 36 months. The cumulative incidence of CLAD was 39% in the cyclosporin group vs 13% in the tacrolimus group (P < .0001), and the number needed to treat was 3.9 patients to prevent one case of CLAD with tacrolimus. While mortality was not significantly different between the two treatment groups in the intention to treat models, tacrolimus had a mortality benefit in the per protocol analysis.

While there is no consensus guideline recommending a first-line immunosuppression regimen following lung transplantation, the lung transplant steering committee believes that additional trials comparing existing agents are of critical importance to reduce CLAD incidence and improve long-term outcomes in LTRs.

References

1. Verleden GM, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38(5):493-503.

2. Dellgren G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;12(1):34-44.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Lung Transplant Section

Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients (LTRs), accounting for around 40% of deaths.¹ LTRs are typically maintained on a three-drug immunosuppressive regimen—a calcineurin inhibitor, antimetabolite agent, and corticosteroid—in order to prevent rejection. Strong randomized controlled trial-generated evidence guiding the choice of immunosuppressive therapy for LTRs is generally lacking.

CHEST

A recent large, multicentered, randomized controlled trial in Scandinavia compared outcomes between once daily extended-release tacrolimus and twice daily cyclosporin.² The target trough for cyclosporin was 250 to 300 ng/mL (0 to 3 months), 200 to 250 ng/mL (3 to 6 months), 150 to 200 ng/mL (6 to 12 months), and 100 to 150 ng/mL beyond 12 months. The trough target for tacrolimus was 10 to 14 ng/mL (0 to 3 months), 8 to 12 ng/mL (3 to 6 months), 8 to 10 ng/mL (6 to 12 months), and 6 to 8 ng/mL beyond 12 months.

CHEST

The study demonstrated that immunosuppressive regimens containing tacrolimus significantly reduced incidence of CLAD diagnosis at 36 months. The cumulative incidence of CLAD was 39% in the cyclosporin group vs 13% in the tacrolimus group (P < .0001), and the number needed to treat was 3.9 patients to prevent one case of CLAD with tacrolimus. While mortality was not significantly different between the two treatment groups in the intention to treat models, tacrolimus had a mortality benefit in the per protocol analysis.

While there is no consensus guideline recommending a first-line immunosuppression regimen following lung transplantation, the lung transplant steering committee believes that additional trials comparing existing agents are of critical importance to reduce CLAD incidence and improve long-term outcomes in LTRs.

References

1. Verleden GM, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38(5):493-503.

2. Dellgren G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;12(1):34-44.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Lung Transplant Section

Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in lung transplant recipients (LTRs), accounting for around 40% of deaths.¹ LTRs are typically maintained on a three-drug immunosuppressive regimen—a calcineurin inhibitor, antimetabolite agent, and corticosteroid—in order to prevent rejection. Strong randomized controlled trial-generated evidence guiding the choice of immunosuppressive therapy for LTRs is generally lacking.

CHEST

A recent large, multicentered, randomized controlled trial in Scandinavia compared outcomes between once daily extended-release tacrolimus and twice daily cyclosporin.² The target trough for cyclosporin was 250 to 300 ng/mL (0 to 3 months), 200 to 250 ng/mL (3 to 6 months), 150 to 200 ng/mL (6 to 12 months), and 100 to 150 ng/mL beyond 12 months. The trough target for tacrolimus was 10 to 14 ng/mL (0 to 3 months), 8 to 12 ng/mL (3 to 6 months), 8 to 10 ng/mL (6 to 12 months), and 6 to 8 ng/mL beyond 12 months.

CHEST

The study demonstrated that immunosuppressive regimens containing tacrolimus significantly reduced incidence of CLAD diagnosis at 36 months. The cumulative incidence of CLAD was 39% in the cyclosporin group vs 13% in the tacrolimus group (P < .0001), and the number needed to treat was 3.9 patients to prevent one case of CLAD with tacrolimus. While mortality was not significantly different between the two treatment groups in the intention to treat models, tacrolimus had a mortality benefit in the per protocol analysis.

While there is no consensus guideline recommending a first-line immunosuppression regimen following lung transplantation, the lung transplant steering committee believes that additional trials comparing existing agents are of critical importance to reduce CLAD incidence and improve long-term outcomes in LTRs.

References

1. Verleden GM, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38(5):493-503.

2. Dellgren G, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2024;12(1):34-44.

CHEST

CHEST

Airways Disorders Network

Bronchiectasis Section

Bronchiectasis patients have dilated airways that are often colonized with bacteria, resulting in a vicious cycle of airway inflammation and progressive dilation. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a frequent airway colonizer and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF) and noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB).¹

Both CF and NCFB guidelines recommend eradication of P. aeruginosa upon detection.² In CF, the guidelines suggest use of inhaled tobramycin, without systemic antibiotics.³ Optimal NCFB eradication regimens remain unknown, though recent studies demonstrated inhaled tobramycin is safe and effective for chronic P. aeruginosa infections in NCFB.⁴

The 2024 meta-analysis by Conceiçã et al. revealed that P. aeruginosa eradication endures more than 12 months in only 40% of NCFB cases, but that patients who received combined therapy—both systemic and inhaled therapies—had a higher eradication rate at 48% compared with 27% in those receiving only systemic antibiotics.⁵ They found that successful eradication reduced exacerbation rate by 0.91 exacerbations per year without changing hospitalization rate. They were unable to comment on optimal antibiotic selection or duration.

A take-home point from Conceiçã et al. suggests trying to eradicate P. aeruginosa with combined systemic and inhaled antibiotics if possible, but other clinical questions remain around initial antibiotic selection and how to treat persistent P. aeruginosa.

References

1. Finch, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(11):1602-1611.

2. Polverino, et al. Eur Respir J. 2017;50:1700629.

3. Mogayzel, et al. Ann ATS. 2014;11(10):1511-1761.

4. Guan, et al. CHEST. 2023;163(1):64-76.

5. Conceiçã, et al. Eur Respir Rev. 2024;33:230178.

CHEST

CHEST

Airways Disorders Network

Bronchiectasis Section

Bronchiectasis patients have dilated airways that are often colonized with bacteria, resulting in a vicious cycle of airway inflammation and progressive dilation. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a frequent airway colonizer and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF) and noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB).¹

Both CF and NCFB guidelines recommend eradication of P. aeruginosa upon detection.² In CF, the guidelines suggest use of inhaled tobramycin, without systemic antibiotics.³ Optimal NCFB eradication regimens remain unknown, though recent studies demonstrated inhaled tobramycin is safe and effective for chronic P. aeruginosa infections in NCFB.⁴

The 2024 meta-analysis by Conceiçã et al. revealed that P. aeruginosa eradication endures more than 12 months in only 40% of NCFB cases, but that patients who received combined therapy—both systemic and inhaled therapies—had a higher eradication rate at 48% compared with 27% in those receiving only systemic antibiotics.⁵ They found that successful eradication reduced exacerbation rate by 0.91 exacerbations per year without changing hospitalization rate. They were unable to comment on optimal antibiotic selection or duration.

A take-home point from Conceiçã et al. suggests trying to eradicate P. aeruginosa with combined systemic and inhaled antibiotics if possible, but other clinical questions remain around initial antibiotic selection and how to treat persistent P. aeruginosa.

References

1. Finch, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(11):1602-1611.

2. Polverino, et al. Eur Respir J. 2017;50:1700629.

3. Mogayzel, et al. Ann ATS. 2014;11(10):1511-1761.

4. Guan, et al. CHEST. 2023;163(1):64-76.

5. Conceiçã, et al. Eur Respir Rev. 2024;33:230178.

CHEST

CHEST

Airways Disorders Network

Bronchiectasis Section

Bronchiectasis patients have dilated airways that are often colonized with bacteria, resulting in a vicious cycle of airway inflammation and progressive dilation. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a frequent airway colonizer and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in cystic fibrosis (CF) and noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB).¹

Both CF and NCFB guidelines recommend eradication of P. aeruginosa upon detection.² In CF, the guidelines suggest use of inhaled tobramycin, without systemic antibiotics.³ Optimal NCFB eradication regimens remain unknown, though recent studies demonstrated inhaled tobramycin is safe and effective for chronic P. aeruginosa infections in NCFB.⁴

The 2024 meta-analysis by Conceiçã et al. revealed that P. aeruginosa eradication endures more than 12 months in only 40% of NCFB cases, but that patients who received combined therapy—both systemic and inhaled therapies—had a higher eradication rate at 48% compared with 27% in those receiving only systemic antibiotics.⁵ They found that successful eradication reduced exacerbation rate by 0.91 exacerbations per year without changing hospitalization rate. They were unable to comment on optimal antibiotic selection or duration.

A take-home point from Conceiçã et al. suggests trying to eradicate P. aeruginosa with combined systemic and inhaled antibiotics if possible, but other clinical questions remain around initial antibiotic selection and how to treat persistent P. aeruginosa.

References

1. Finch, et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(11):1602-1611.

2. Polverino, et al. Eur Respir J. 2017;50:1700629.

3. Mogayzel, et al. Ann ATS. 2014;11(10):1511-1761.

4. Guan, et al. CHEST. 2023;163(1):64-76.

5. Conceiçã, et al. Eur Respir Rev. 2024;33:230178.

Erosive esophagitis (EE) is erosion of the esophageal epithelium due to chronic irritation. It can be caused by a number of factors but is primarily a result of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The main symptoms of EE are heartburn and regurgitation; other symptoms can include epigastric pain, odynophagia, dysphagia, nausea, chronic cough, dental erosion, laryngitis, and asthma. Symptoms can be exacerbated by eating certain trigger foods or when lying down. Diagnosis requires testing to differentiate EE from other manifestations of GERD, including nonerosive esophagitis and Barrett esophagus (BE). EE occurs in approximately 30% of cases of GERD, and EE may evolve to BE in 1%-13% of cases.

Long-term management of EE focuses on relieving symptoms to allow the esophageal lining to heal, thereby reducing both acute symptoms and the risk for other complications. Management plans may incorporate lifestyle changes, such as dietary modifications and weight loss, alongside pharmacologic therapy. In extreme cases, surgery may be considered to repair a damaged esophagus and/or to prevent ongoing acid reflux. If left untreated, EE may progress, potentially leading to more serious conditions.

Here are five things to know about EE.

1. GERD is the main risk factor for EE, but not the only risk factor.

An estimated 1% of the population has EE. Risk factors other than GERD include:

Radiation therapy toxicity can cause acute or chronic EE. For individuals undergoing radiotherapy, radiation esophagitis is a relatively frequent complication. Acute esophagitis generally occurs in all patients taking radiation doses of 6000 cGy given in fractions of 1000 cGy per week. The risk is lower among patients on longer schedules and lower doses of radiotherapy.

Bacterial, viral, and fungal infections can cause EE. These include herpes, CMV, HIV, Helicobacter pylori, and Candida.

Food allergies, asthma, and eczema are associated with eosinophilic esophagitis, which disproportionately affects young men and has an estimated prevalence of 55 cases per 100,000 population.

Oral medication in pill form causes esophagitis at an estimated rate of 3.9 cases per 100,000 population per year. The mean age at diagnosis is 41.5 years. Oral bisphosphonates such as alendronate are the most common agents, along with antibiotics such as tetracycline, doxycycline, and clindamycin. There have also been reports of pill-induced esophagitis with NSAIDs, aspirin, ferrous sulfate, potassium chloride, and mexiletine.

Excessive vomiting can, in rare cases, cause esophagitis.

Certain autoimmune diseases can manifest as EE.

2. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain the preferred treatment for EE.

Several over-the-counter and prescription medications can be used to manage the symptoms of EE. PPIs are the preferred treatment both in the acute setting and for maintenance therapy. PPIs help to alleviate symptoms and promote healing of the esophageal lining by reducing the production of stomach acid. Options include omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole. Many patients with EE require a dose that exceeds the FDA-approved dose for GERD. For instance, a 40-mg/d dosage of omeprazole is recommended in the latest guidelines, although the FDA-approved dosage is 20 mg/d.

H2-receptor antagonists, including famotidine, cimetidine, and nizatidine, may also be prescribed to reduce stomach acid production and promote healing in patients with EE due to GERD, but these agents are considered less efficacious than PPIs for either acute or maintenance therapy.

The potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan is the latest agent to be indicated for EE and may provide more potent acid suppression for patients. A randomized comparative trial showed noninferiority compared with lansoprazole for healing and maintenance of healing of EE. In another randomized comparative study, the investigational PCAP fexuprazan was shown to be noninferior to the PPI esomeprazole in treating EE.

Mild GERD symptoms can be controlled by traditional antacids taken after each meal and at bedtime or with short-term use of prokinetic agents, which can help reduce acid reflux by improving esophageal and stomach motility and by increasing pressure to the lower esophageal sphincter. Gastric emptying is also accelerated by prokinetic agents. Long-term use is discouraged, as it may cause serious or life-threatening complications.

In patients who do not fully respond to PPI therapy, surgical therapy may be considered. Other candidates for surgery include younger patients, those who have difficulty adhering to treatment, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, patients with cardiac conduction defects, and those for whom the cost of treatment is prohibitive. Surgery may also be warranted if there are extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, such as enamel erosion; respiratory issues (eg, coughing, wheezing, aspiration); or ear, nose, and throat manifestations (eg, hoarseness, sore throat, otitis media). For those who have progressed to BE, surgical intervention is also indicated.

The types of surgery for patients with EE have evolved to include both transthoracic and transabdominal fundoplication. Usually, a 360° transabdominal fundoplication is performed. General anesthesia is required for laparoscopic fundoplication, in which five small incisions are used to create a new valve at the level of the esophagogastric junction by wrapping the fundus of the stomach around the esophagus.

Laparoscopic insertion of a small band known as the LINX Reflux Management System is FDA approved to augment the lower esophageal sphincter. The system creates a natural barrier to reflux by placing a band consisting of titanium beads with magnetic cores around the esophagus just above the stomach. The magnetic bond is temporarily disrupted by swallowing, allowing food and liquid to pass.

Endoscopic therapies are another treatment option for certain patients who are not considered candidates for surgery or long-term therapy. Among the types of endoscopic procedures are radiofrequency therapy, suturing/plication, and mucosal ablation/resection techniques at the gastroesophageal junction. Full-thickness endoscopic suturing is an area of interest because this technique offers significant durability of the recreated lower esophageal sphincter.

3. PPI therapy for GERD should be stopped before endoscopy is performed to confirm a diagnosis of EE.

A clinical diagnosis of GERD can be made if the presenting symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation, without chest pain or alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding. In this setting, once-daily PPIs are generally prescribed for 8 weeks to see if symptoms resolve. If symptoms have not resolved, a twice-daily PPI regimen may be prescribed. In patients who do not respond to PPIs, or for whom GERD returns after stopping therapy, an upper endoscopy with biopsy is recommended after 2-4 weeks off therapy to rule out other causes. Endoscopy should be the first step in diagnosis for individuals experiencing chest pain without heartburn; those in whom heart disease has been ruled out; individuals experiencing dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding; or those who have multiple risk factors for BE.

4. The most serious complication of EE is BE, which can lead to esophageal cancer.

Several complications can arise from EE. The most serious of these is BE, which can lead to esophageal adenocarcinoma. BE is characterized by the conversion of normal distal squamous esophageal epithelium to columnar epithelium. It has the potential to become malignant if it exhibits intestinal-type metaplasia. In the industrialized world, adenocarcinoma currently represents more than half of all esophageal cancers. The most common symptom of esophageal cancer is dysphagia. Other signs and symptoms include weight loss, hoarseness, chronic or intractable cough, bleeding, epigastric or retrosternal pain, frequent pneumonia, and, if metastatic, bone pain.

5. Lifestyle modifications can help control the symptoms of EE.

Guidelines recommend a number of lifestyle modification strategies to help control the symptoms of EE. Smoking cessation and weight loss are two evidence-based strategies for relieving symptoms of GERD and, ultimately, lowering the risk for esophageal cancer. One large prospective Norwegian cohort study (N = 29,610) found that stopping smoking improved GERD symptoms, but only in those with normal body mass index. In a smaller Japanese study (N = 191) specifically surveying people attempting smoking cessation, individuals who successfully stopped smoking had a 44% improvement in GERD symptoms at 1 year, vs an 18% improvement in those who continued to smoke, with no statistical difference between the success and failure groups based on patient body mass index (P = .60).

Other recommended strategies for nonpharmacologic management of EE symptoms include elevation of the head when lying down in bed and avoidance of lying down after eating, cessation of alcohol consumption, avoidance of food close to bedtime, and avoidance of trigger foods that can incite or worsen symptoms of acid reflux. Such trigger foods vary among individuals, but they often include fatty foods, coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, citrus fruits, and tomatoes.

Dr. Puerta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Erosive esophagitis (EE) is erosion of the esophageal epithelium due to chronic irritation. It can be caused by a number of factors but is primarily a result of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The main symptoms of EE are heartburn and regurgitation; other symptoms can include epigastric pain, odynophagia, dysphagia, nausea, chronic cough, dental erosion, laryngitis, and asthma. Symptoms can be exacerbated by eating certain trigger foods or when lying down. Diagnosis requires testing to differentiate EE from other manifestations of GERD, including nonerosive esophagitis and Barrett esophagus (BE). EE occurs in approximately 30% of cases of GERD, and EE may evolve to BE in 1%-13% of cases.

Long-term management of EE focuses on relieving symptoms to allow the esophageal lining to heal, thereby reducing both acute symptoms and the risk for other complications. Management plans may incorporate lifestyle changes, such as dietary modifications and weight loss, alongside pharmacologic therapy. In extreme cases, surgery may be considered to repair a damaged esophagus and/or to prevent ongoing acid reflux. If left untreated, EE may progress, potentially leading to more serious conditions.

Here are five things to know about EE.

1. GERD is the main risk factor for EE, but not the only risk factor.

An estimated 1% of the population has EE. Risk factors other than GERD include:

Radiation therapy toxicity can cause acute or chronic EE. For individuals undergoing radiotherapy, radiation esophagitis is a relatively frequent complication. Acute esophagitis generally occurs in all patients taking radiation doses of 6000 cGy given in fractions of 1000 cGy per week. The risk is lower among patients on longer schedules and lower doses of radiotherapy.

Bacterial, viral, and fungal infections can cause EE. These include herpes, CMV, HIV, Helicobacter pylori, and Candida.

Food allergies, asthma, and eczema are associated with eosinophilic esophagitis, which disproportionately affects young men and has an estimated prevalence of 55 cases per 100,000 population.

Oral medication in pill form causes esophagitis at an estimated rate of 3.9 cases per 100,000 population per year. The mean age at diagnosis is 41.5 years. Oral bisphosphonates such as alendronate are the most common agents, along with antibiotics such as tetracycline, doxycycline, and clindamycin. There have also been reports of pill-induced esophagitis with NSAIDs, aspirin, ferrous sulfate, potassium chloride, and mexiletine.

Excessive vomiting can, in rare cases, cause esophagitis.

Certain autoimmune diseases can manifest as EE.

2. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain the preferred treatment for EE.

Several over-the-counter and prescription medications can be used to manage the symptoms of EE. PPIs are the preferred treatment both in the acute setting and for maintenance therapy. PPIs help to alleviate symptoms and promote healing of the esophageal lining by reducing the production of stomach acid. Options include omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole. Many patients with EE require a dose that exceeds the FDA-approved dose for GERD. For instance, a 40-mg/d dosage of omeprazole is recommended in the latest guidelines, although the FDA-approved dosage is 20 mg/d.

H2-receptor antagonists, including famotidine, cimetidine, and nizatidine, may also be prescribed to reduce stomach acid production and promote healing in patients with EE due to GERD, but these agents are considered less efficacious than PPIs for either acute or maintenance therapy.

The potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan is the latest agent to be indicated for EE and may provide more potent acid suppression for patients. A randomized comparative trial showed noninferiority compared with lansoprazole for healing and maintenance of healing of EE. In another randomized comparative study, the investigational PCAP fexuprazan was shown to be noninferior to the PPI esomeprazole in treating EE.

Mild GERD symptoms can be controlled by traditional antacids taken after each meal and at bedtime or with short-term use of prokinetic agents, which can help reduce acid reflux by improving esophageal and stomach motility and by increasing pressure to the lower esophageal sphincter. Gastric emptying is also accelerated by prokinetic agents. Long-term use is discouraged, as it may cause serious or life-threatening complications.

In patients who do not fully respond to PPI therapy, surgical therapy may be considered. Other candidates for surgery include younger patients, those who have difficulty adhering to treatment, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, patients with cardiac conduction defects, and those for whom the cost of treatment is prohibitive. Surgery may also be warranted if there are extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, such as enamel erosion; respiratory issues (eg, coughing, wheezing, aspiration); or ear, nose, and throat manifestations (eg, hoarseness, sore throat, otitis media). For those who have progressed to BE, surgical intervention is also indicated.

The types of surgery for patients with EE have evolved to include both transthoracic and transabdominal fundoplication. Usually, a 360° transabdominal fundoplication is performed. General anesthesia is required for laparoscopic fundoplication, in which five small incisions are used to create a new valve at the level of the esophagogastric junction by wrapping the fundus of the stomach around the esophagus.

Laparoscopic insertion of a small band known as the LINX Reflux Management System is FDA approved to augment the lower esophageal sphincter. The system creates a natural barrier to reflux by placing a band consisting of titanium beads with magnetic cores around the esophagus just above the stomach. The magnetic bond is temporarily disrupted by swallowing, allowing food and liquid to pass.

Endoscopic therapies are another treatment option for certain patients who are not considered candidates for surgery or long-term therapy. Among the types of endoscopic procedures are radiofrequency therapy, suturing/plication, and mucosal ablation/resection techniques at the gastroesophageal junction. Full-thickness endoscopic suturing is an area of interest because this technique offers significant durability of the recreated lower esophageal sphincter.

3. PPI therapy for GERD should be stopped before endoscopy is performed to confirm a diagnosis of EE.

A clinical diagnosis of GERD can be made if the presenting symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation, without chest pain or alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding. In this setting, once-daily PPIs are generally prescribed for 8 weeks to see if symptoms resolve. If symptoms have not resolved, a twice-daily PPI regimen may be prescribed. In patients who do not respond to PPIs, or for whom GERD returns after stopping therapy, an upper endoscopy with biopsy is recommended after 2-4 weeks off therapy to rule out other causes. Endoscopy should be the first step in diagnosis for individuals experiencing chest pain without heartburn; those in whom heart disease has been ruled out; individuals experiencing dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding; or those who have multiple risk factors for BE.

4. The most serious complication of EE is BE, which can lead to esophageal cancer.

Several complications can arise from EE. The most serious of these is BE, which can lead to esophageal adenocarcinoma. BE is characterized by the conversion of normal distal squamous esophageal epithelium to columnar epithelium. It has the potential to become malignant if it exhibits intestinal-type metaplasia. In the industrialized world, adenocarcinoma currently represents more than half of all esophageal cancers. The most common symptom of esophageal cancer is dysphagia. Other signs and symptoms include weight loss, hoarseness, chronic or intractable cough, bleeding, epigastric or retrosternal pain, frequent pneumonia, and, if metastatic, bone pain.

5. Lifestyle modifications can help control the symptoms of EE.

Guidelines recommend a number of lifestyle modification strategies to help control the symptoms of EE. Smoking cessation and weight loss are two evidence-based strategies for relieving symptoms of GERD and, ultimately, lowering the risk for esophageal cancer. One large prospective Norwegian cohort study (N = 29,610) found that stopping smoking improved GERD symptoms, but only in those with normal body mass index. In a smaller Japanese study (N = 191) specifically surveying people attempting smoking cessation, individuals who successfully stopped smoking had a 44% improvement in GERD symptoms at 1 year, vs an 18% improvement in those who continued to smoke, with no statistical difference between the success and failure groups based on patient body mass index (P = .60).

Other recommended strategies for nonpharmacologic management of EE symptoms include elevation of the head when lying down in bed and avoidance of lying down after eating, cessation of alcohol consumption, avoidance of food close to bedtime, and avoidance of trigger foods that can incite or worsen symptoms of acid reflux. Such trigger foods vary among individuals, but they often include fatty foods, coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, citrus fruits, and tomatoes.

Dr. Puerta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Erosive esophagitis (EE) is erosion of the esophageal epithelium due to chronic irritation. It can be caused by a number of factors but is primarily a result of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The main symptoms of EE are heartburn and regurgitation; other symptoms can include epigastric pain, odynophagia, dysphagia, nausea, chronic cough, dental erosion, laryngitis, and asthma. Symptoms can be exacerbated by eating certain trigger foods or when lying down. Diagnosis requires testing to differentiate EE from other manifestations of GERD, including nonerosive esophagitis and Barrett esophagus (BE). EE occurs in approximately 30% of cases of GERD, and EE may evolve to BE in 1%-13% of cases.

Long-term management of EE focuses on relieving symptoms to allow the esophageal lining to heal, thereby reducing both acute symptoms and the risk for other complications. Management plans may incorporate lifestyle changes, such as dietary modifications and weight loss, alongside pharmacologic therapy. In extreme cases, surgery may be considered to repair a damaged esophagus and/or to prevent ongoing acid reflux. If left untreated, EE may progress, potentially leading to more serious conditions.

Here are five things to know about EE.

1. GERD is the main risk factor for EE, but not the only risk factor.

An estimated 1% of the population has EE. Risk factors other than GERD include:

Radiation therapy toxicity can cause acute or chronic EE. For individuals undergoing radiotherapy, radiation esophagitis is a relatively frequent complication. Acute esophagitis generally occurs in all patients taking radiation doses of 6000 cGy given in fractions of 1000 cGy per week. The risk is lower among patients on longer schedules and lower doses of radiotherapy.

Bacterial, viral, and fungal infections can cause EE. These include herpes, CMV, HIV, Helicobacter pylori, and Candida.

Food allergies, asthma, and eczema are associated with eosinophilic esophagitis, which disproportionately affects young men and has an estimated prevalence of 55 cases per 100,000 population.

Oral medication in pill form causes esophagitis at an estimated rate of 3.9 cases per 100,000 population per year. The mean age at diagnosis is 41.5 years. Oral bisphosphonates such as alendronate are the most common agents, along with antibiotics such as tetracycline, doxycycline, and clindamycin. There have also been reports of pill-induced esophagitis with NSAIDs, aspirin, ferrous sulfate, potassium chloride, and mexiletine.

Excessive vomiting can, in rare cases, cause esophagitis.

Certain autoimmune diseases can manifest as EE.

2. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain the preferred treatment for EE.

Several over-the-counter and prescription medications can be used to manage the symptoms of EE. PPIs are the preferred treatment both in the acute setting and for maintenance therapy. PPIs help to alleviate symptoms and promote healing of the esophageal lining by reducing the production of stomach acid. Options include omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, rabeprazole, and esomeprazole. Many patients with EE require a dose that exceeds the FDA-approved dose for GERD. For instance, a 40-mg/d dosage of omeprazole is recommended in the latest guidelines, although the FDA-approved dosage is 20 mg/d.

H2-receptor antagonists, including famotidine, cimetidine, and nizatidine, may also be prescribed to reduce stomach acid production and promote healing in patients with EE due to GERD, but these agents are considered less efficacious than PPIs for either acute or maintenance therapy.

The potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB) vonoprazan is the latest agent to be indicated for EE and may provide more potent acid suppression for patients. A randomized comparative trial showed noninferiority compared with lansoprazole for healing and maintenance of healing of EE. In another randomized comparative study, the investigational PCAP fexuprazan was shown to be noninferior to the PPI esomeprazole in treating EE.

Mild GERD symptoms can be controlled by traditional antacids taken after each meal and at bedtime or with short-term use of prokinetic agents, which can help reduce acid reflux by improving esophageal and stomach motility and by increasing pressure to the lower esophageal sphincter. Gastric emptying is also accelerated by prokinetic agents. Long-term use is discouraged, as it may cause serious or life-threatening complications.

In patients who do not fully respond to PPI therapy, surgical therapy may be considered. Other candidates for surgery include younger patients, those who have difficulty adhering to treatment, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, patients with cardiac conduction defects, and those for whom the cost of treatment is prohibitive. Surgery may also be warranted if there are extraesophageal manifestations of GERD, such as enamel erosion; respiratory issues (eg, coughing, wheezing, aspiration); or ear, nose, and throat manifestations (eg, hoarseness, sore throat, otitis media). For those who have progressed to BE, surgical intervention is also indicated.

The types of surgery for patients with EE have evolved to include both transthoracic and transabdominal fundoplication. Usually, a 360° transabdominal fundoplication is performed. General anesthesia is required for laparoscopic fundoplication, in which five small incisions are used to create a new valve at the level of the esophagogastric junction by wrapping the fundus of the stomach around the esophagus.

Laparoscopic insertion of a small band known as the LINX Reflux Management System is FDA approved to augment the lower esophageal sphincter. The system creates a natural barrier to reflux by placing a band consisting of titanium beads with magnetic cores around the esophagus just above the stomach. The magnetic bond is temporarily disrupted by swallowing, allowing food and liquid to pass.

Endoscopic therapies are another treatment option for certain patients who are not considered candidates for surgery or long-term therapy. Among the types of endoscopic procedures are radiofrequency therapy, suturing/plication, and mucosal ablation/resection techniques at the gastroesophageal junction. Full-thickness endoscopic suturing is an area of interest because this technique offers significant durability of the recreated lower esophageal sphincter.

3. PPI therapy for GERD should be stopped before endoscopy is performed to confirm a diagnosis of EE.

A clinical diagnosis of GERD can be made if the presenting symptoms are heartburn and regurgitation, without chest pain or alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding. In this setting, once-daily PPIs are generally prescribed for 8 weeks to see if symptoms resolve. If symptoms have not resolved, a twice-daily PPI regimen may be prescribed. In patients who do not respond to PPIs, or for whom GERD returns after stopping therapy, an upper endoscopy with biopsy is recommended after 2-4 weeks off therapy to rule out other causes. Endoscopy should be the first step in diagnosis for individuals experiencing chest pain without heartburn; those in whom heart disease has been ruled out; individuals experiencing dysphagia, weight loss, or gastrointestinal bleeding; or those who have multiple risk factors for BE.

4. The most serious complication of EE is BE, which can lead to esophageal cancer.

Several complications can arise from EE. The most serious of these is BE, which can lead to esophageal adenocarcinoma. BE is characterized by the conversion of normal distal squamous esophageal epithelium to columnar epithelium. It has the potential to become malignant if it exhibits intestinal-type metaplasia. In the industrialized world, adenocarcinoma currently represents more than half of all esophageal cancers. The most common symptom of esophageal cancer is dysphagia. Other signs and symptoms include weight loss, hoarseness, chronic or intractable cough, bleeding, epigastric or retrosternal pain, frequent pneumonia, and, if metastatic, bone pain.

5. Lifestyle modifications can help control the symptoms of EE.

Guidelines recommend a number of lifestyle modification strategies to help control the symptoms of EE. Smoking cessation and weight loss are two evidence-based strategies for relieving symptoms of GERD and, ultimately, lowering the risk for esophageal cancer. One large prospective Norwegian cohort study (N = 29,610) found that stopping smoking improved GERD symptoms, but only in those with normal body mass index. In a smaller Japanese study (N = 191) specifically surveying people attempting smoking cessation, individuals who successfully stopped smoking had a 44% improvement in GERD symptoms at 1 year, vs an 18% improvement in those who continued to smoke, with no statistical difference between the success and failure groups based on patient body mass index (P = .60).

Other recommended strategies for nonpharmacologic management of EE symptoms include elevation of the head when lying down in bed and avoidance of lying down after eating, cessation of alcohol consumption, avoidance of food close to bedtime, and avoidance of trigger foods that can incite or worsen symptoms of acid reflux. Such trigger foods vary among individuals, but they often include fatty foods, coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, citrus fruits, and tomatoes.

Dr. Puerta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pulmonary Vascular and Cardiovascular Network

Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery Section

Intensive care physicians around the nation are pivotal in improving shock-related patient outcomes. At present time, there is still a dearth of available dual-boarded cardiology and intensive care physicians around the country, and advanced heart failure fellowship positions continue to be unfilled in the NRMP match. Most intensive care units (academic and nonacademic) are currently managed by intensive care physicians, and a large majority of these physicians are either pulmonary/critical care, emergency medicine critical care, surgery critical care, or medicine/critical care.

CHEST

There is lack of systematic training in cardiogenic shock across the board in these specialties as it relates to management of patients supported on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), percutaneous devices, and intermediate devices such as centrimag devices.

CHEST

By integrating comprehensive systematic training on cardiogenic shock recognition and management into educational initiatives, fellowship programs that are noncardiology-based can empower health care providers to make informed decisions and expedite life-saving interventions for patients in need of advanced cardiac support. Furthermore, the next generation of intensive care physicians may require ongoing education in the cardiac space, including additional training in point-of-care ultrasound, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and advanced hemodynamics, including management of alarms related to percutaneous and durable devices. Through continuous education and training both at conferences and at the simulation center in Glenview, Illinois, CHEST is especially suited to aid intensive care physicians to navigate the evolving landscape of mechanical circulatory support critical care and improve outcomes for patients in need of mechanical circulatory support.

Pulmonary Vascular and Cardiovascular Network

Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery Section

Intensive care physicians around the nation are pivotal in improving shock-related patient outcomes. At present time, there is still a dearth of available dual-boarded cardiology and intensive care physicians around the country, and advanced heart failure fellowship positions continue to be unfilled in the NRMP match. Most intensive care units (academic and nonacademic) are currently managed by intensive care physicians, and a large majority of these physicians are either pulmonary/critical care, emergency medicine critical care, surgery critical care, or medicine/critical care.

CHEST

There is lack of systematic training in cardiogenic shock across the board in these specialties as it relates to management of patients supported on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), percutaneous devices, and intermediate devices such as centrimag devices.

CHEST

By integrating comprehensive systematic training on cardiogenic shock recognition and management into educational initiatives, fellowship programs that are noncardiology-based can empower health care providers to make informed decisions and expedite life-saving interventions for patients in need of advanced cardiac support. Furthermore, the next generation of intensive care physicians may require ongoing education in the cardiac space, including additional training in point-of-care ultrasound, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and advanced hemodynamics, including management of alarms related to percutaneous and durable devices. Through continuous education and training both at conferences and at the simulation center in Glenview, Illinois, CHEST is especially suited to aid intensive care physicians to navigate the evolving landscape of mechanical circulatory support critical care and improve outcomes for patients in need of mechanical circulatory support.

Pulmonary Vascular and Cardiovascular Network

Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery Section

Intensive care physicians around the nation are pivotal in improving shock-related patient outcomes. At present time, there is still a dearth of available dual-boarded cardiology and intensive care physicians around the country, and advanced heart failure fellowship positions continue to be unfilled in the NRMP match. Most intensive care units (academic and nonacademic) are currently managed by intensive care physicians, and a large majority of these physicians are either pulmonary/critical care, emergency medicine critical care, surgery critical care, or medicine/critical care.

CHEST

There is lack of systematic training in cardiogenic shock across the board in these specialties as it relates to management of patients supported on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), percutaneous devices, and intermediate devices such as centrimag devices.

CHEST

By integrating comprehensive systematic training on cardiogenic shock recognition and management into educational initiatives, fellowship programs that are noncardiology-based can empower health care providers to make informed decisions and expedite life-saving interventions for patients in need of advanced cardiac support. Furthermore, the next generation of intensive care physicians may require ongoing education in the cardiac space, including additional training in point-of-care ultrasound, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and advanced hemodynamics, including management of alarms related to percutaneous and durable devices. Through continuous education and training both at conferences and at the simulation center in Glenview, Illinois, CHEST is especially suited to aid intensive care physicians to navigate the evolving landscape of mechanical circulatory support critical care and improve outcomes for patients in need of mechanical circulatory support.