CHEST Physician

TOPLINE:

Use of e-cigarettes among U.S. teens was down sharply, dropping from 14.1% in 2022 to 10% in 2023, government figures show, but the majority of these youth still used flavored products, which have been shown to both entice teens and keep them vaping.

METHODOLOGY:

• The MMRW report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presents data from an annual survey of U.S. middle and high school students of their use of tobacco products, including vapes.
• The survey is a cross-sectional, school-based, self-administered web-based questionnaire that uses a stratified, three-stage cluster sampling procedure to generate a nationally representative sample based off the responses of 22,069 students in 2023.
• The overall response rate was 30.5%.
• “Ever use” was defined as using a product once or twice previously, and “current use” was defined as use in the past 30 days.
• The survey queried students on their use of e-cigarettes, traditional cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, nicotine pouches, hookahs, pipe tobacco, and other oral nicotine products.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of tobacco products by high school students decreased by 540,000 people from 2022 to 2023 (2.51 million vs. 1.97 million students).
• From 2022 to 2023, current e-cigarette use among high school students declined from 14.1% to 10.0%.
• Among middle and high school students, e-cigarettes were the most used nicotine product in 2023 (7.7%; 2.13 million), followed by cigarettes (1.6%), cigars (1.6%), nicotine pouches (1.5%), smokeless tobacco (1.2%), other oral nicotine products (1.2%), hookahs (1.1%), heated tobacco products (1.0%), and pipe tobacco (0.5%).
• Among students reporting current e-cigarette use, 89.4% said that they used flavored products, and 25.2% said they used an e-cigarette daily. The most commonly reported brands were Elf Bar, Esco Bar, Vuse, JUUL, and Mr. Fog. Fruit (63.4%) and candy (35%) were the most commonly reported flavors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained efforts to prevent initiation of tobacco product use among young persons and strategies to help young tobacco users quit are critical to reducing U.S. youth tobacco product use,” the report states.

SOURCE:

The report was produced by the CDC and published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for Nov. 3, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

Data were obtained by students self-reporting their tobacco use, which can result in social desirability and recall biases, the report states. In addition, the responses were from students enrolled in school settings and may not be representative of teens who are in detention centers, alternative schools, have dropped out of school or are homeschooled. The response rate for the 2023 survey was also lower than in the previous year (30.5% in 2023 vs. 45.2% in 2022), increasing the potential for higher standard errors and reducing the power to detect significant differences.

DISCLOSURES:

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of e-cigarettes among U.S. teens was down sharply, dropping from 14.1% in 2022 to 10% in 2023, government figures show, but the majority of these youth still used flavored products, which have been shown to both entice teens and keep them vaping.

METHODOLOGY:

• The MMRW report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presents data from an annual survey of U.S. middle and high school students of their use of tobacco products, including vapes.
• The survey is a cross-sectional, school-based, self-administered web-based questionnaire that uses a stratified, three-stage cluster sampling procedure to generate a nationally representative sample based off the responses of 22,069 students in 2023.
• The overall response rate was 30.5%.
• “Ever use” was defined as using a product once or twice previously, and “current use” was defined as use in the past 30 days.
• The survey queried students on their use of e-cigarettes, traditional cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, nicotine pouches, hookahs, pipe tobacco, and other oral nicotine products.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of tobacco products by high school students decreased by 540,000 people from 2022 to 2023 (2.51 million vs. 1.97 million students).
• From 2022 to 2023, current e-cigarette use among high school students declined from 14.1% to 10.0%.
• Among middle and high school students, e-cigarettes were the most used nicotine product in 2023 (7.7%; 2.13 million), followed by cigarettes (1.6%), cigars (1.6%), nicotine pouches (1.5%), smokeless tobacco (1.2%), other oral nicotine products (1.2%), hookahs (1.1%), heated tobacco products (1.0%), and pipe tobacco (0.5%).
• Among students reporting current e-cigarette use, 89.4% said that they used flavored products, and 25.2% said they used an e-cigarette daily. The most commonly reported brands were Elf Bar, Esco Bar, Vuse, JUUL, and Mr. Fog. Fruit (63.4%) and candy (35%) were the most commonly reported flavors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained efforts to prevent initiation of tobacco product use among young persons and strategies to help young tobacco users quit are critical to reducing U.S. youth tobacco product use,” the report states.

SOURCE:

The report was produced by the CDC and published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for Nov. 3, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

Data were obtained by students self-reporting their tobacco use, which can result in social desirability and recall biases, the report states. In addition, the responses were from students enrolled in school settings and may not be representative of teens who are in detention centers, alternative schools, have dropped out of school or are homeschooled. The response rate for the 2023 survey was also lower than in the previous year (30.5% in 2023 vs. 45.2% in 2022), increasing the potential for higher standard errors and reducing the power to detect significant differences.

DISCLOSURES:

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of e-cigarettes among U.S. teens was down sharply, dropping from 14.1% in 2022 to 10% in 2023, government figures show, but the majority of these youth still used flavored products, which have been shown to both entice teens and keep them vaping.

METHODOLOGY:

• The MMRW report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presents data from an annual survey of U.S. middle and high school students of their use of tobacco products, including vapes.
• The survey is a cross-sectional, school-based, self-administered web-based questionnaire that uses a stratified, three-stage cluster sampling procedure to generate a nationally representative sample based off the responses of 22,069 students in 2023.
• The overall response rate was 30.5%.
• “Ever use” was defined as using a product once or twice previously, and “current use” was defined as use in the past 30 days.
• The survey queried students on their use of e-cigarettes, traditional cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, nicotine pouches, hookahs, pipe tobacco, and other oral nicotine products.

TAKEAWAY:

• The use of tobacco products by high school students decreased by 540,000 people from 2022 to 2023 (2.51 million vs. 1.97 million students).
• From 2022 to 2023, current e-cigarette use among high school students declined from 14.1% to 10.0%.
• Among middle and high school students, e-cigarettes were the most used nicotine product in 2023 (7.7%; 2.13 million), followed by cigarettes (1.6%), cigars (1.6%), nicotine pouches (1.5%), smokeless tobacco (1.2%), other oral nicotine products (1.2%), hookahs (1.1%), heated tobacco products (1.0%), and pipe tobacco (0.5%).
• Among students reporting current e-cigarette use, 89.4% said that they used flavored products, and 25.2% said they used an e-cigarette daily. The most commonly reported brands were Elf Bar, Esco Bar, Vuse, JUUL, and Mr. Fog. Fruit (63.4%) and candy (35%) were the most commonly reported flavors.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained efforts to prevent initiation of tobacco product use among young persons and strategies to help young tobacco users quit are critical to reducing U.S. youth tobacco product use,” the report states.

SOURCE:

The report was produced by the CDC and published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for Nov. 3, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

Data were obtained by students self-reporting their tobacco use, which can result in social desirability and recall biases, the report states. In addition, the responses were from students enrolled in school settings and may not be representative of teens who are in detention centers, alternative schools, have dropped out of school or are homeschooled. The response rate for the 2023 survey was also lower than in the previous year (30.5% in 2023 vs. 45.2% in 2022), increasing the potential for higher standard errors and reducing the power to detect significant differences.

DISCLOSURES:

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The American Cancer Society has updated its screening guidelines for lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-specific deaths in the United States and the largest driver of potential years of life lost from cancer.

The 2023 screening guidance, aimed principally at reducing lung cancer mortality in asymptomatic but high-risk, tobacco-exposed individuals, expands the age eligibility and lowers both the former smoking history and the years since quitting threshold for screening with low-dose CT (LDCT).

It is based on the most recent evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of screening and lung cancer risk in persons who formerly smoked, wrote the ACS’s Guideline Development Group led by Robert A. Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science. The new guidelines, which replace the 2013 statement, appear in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians.

The primary evidence source for the update was a systematic review of LDCT lung cancer screening conducted for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and published in 2021.

The new guideline continues a trend of expanding eligibility for lung cancer screening, which has had low uptake, to prevent more deaths. “Recent studies have shown that extending the age for persons who smoked and formerly smoked, eliminating the ‘years since quitting’ requirement, and lowering the pack-per-year recommendation could make a real difference in saving lives,” Dr. Smith said. “The relative risk of developing lung cancer in people who have smoked most of their life compared to people who never smoked is very high – about 70 times the risk.” Although lung cancer is the third most common malignancy in the United States, it accounts for more deaths than colorectal, breast, prostate, and cervical cancers combined.

The recommendation for annual LDCT for at-risk persons remains unchanged from 2013.

Among the 2023 eligibility changes:

• Age: Expanded to 50-80 years from 55-74 years.
• Smoking status: Changed to current or previous smoker from current smoker or smoker who quit within past 15 years (number of years since quitting no longer a criterion to start or stop screening). Dr. Smith noted that both the 2013 guidelines and other groups’ updated recommendations retained the eligibility cutoff of 15 years since smoking cessation. “But had their risk declined to a level that just did not justify continuing screening?” he asked. “There wasn’t an answer to that question, so we needed to look carefully at the absolute risk of lung cancer in persons who formerly smoked compared with people who currently smoked and people who never smoked.”
• Smoking history: Reduced to 20 or more pack-years (average of 20 cigarettes a day) versus 30 or more pack-years.
• Exclusions: Expanded to health conditions that may increase harm or hinder further evaluation, surgery, or treatment; comorbidities limiting life expectancy to fewer than 5 years; unwillingness to accept treatment for screen‐detected cancer, which was changed from 2013’s life‐limiting comorbid conditions, metallic implants or devices in the chest or back, home oxygen supplementation.

In addition, decision-making should be a shared process with a health professional providing the patient with information on the benefits, limitations, and harms of LDCT screening, as well as prescreening advice on smoking cessation and the offer of assistive counseling and pharmocotherapy.

“Overall, lung cancer screening remains one of the least used early cancer detection modalities in clinical practice. The new guidance opens up lung cancer screening to all former smokers regardless of time of cessation,” said internist William E. Golden, MD, MACP, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “This may promote greater uptake in concert with greater availability of low-radiation CT scanning.”

While agreeing the expanded criteria will enfranchise nearly 5 million current and former U.S. smokers for screening and may reduce deaths, internist Aarati D. Didwania, MD, MMSCI, MACP, a professor of medicine and medical education at Northwestern University, Chicago, warned that increasing actual uptake may be an uphill battle. “The practical part of the equation is seeing that the scans get done. There is often a lag between a recommendation of a yearly test and getting insurance coverage for it, and many disadvantaged people face barriers.” Then there’s the knowledge gap. “Patients and doctors have to know what the new guidelines are and who has access,” she said.

Reaching the target population in rural areas is particularly challenging with the greater distances to imaging centers. Another barrier is that most electronic health records do not identify eligible patients based on smoking and pack‐year history.

In Dr. Didwania’s view, professional medical societies have an important role to play in educating their members, and through them, patients. “Disseminating information about the new recommendations is the first step and would be incredibly helpful.”
 

A brief history of lung cancer screening

1950s: By mid-20th century, the causal association between tobacco exposure and lung cancer became clear and by the late 1950s attempts were made to develop a lung cancer screening strategy for high‐risk individuals, commonly with the combination of sputum cytology and chest x-ray.

1970s: The ACS recommended annual testing for current or former smokers with chest x-ray (and sometimes sputum cytology).

1980: The ACS withdrew the above recommendation for regular radiographic screening after randomized controlled trials failed to yield convincing evidence that such screening saved lives.

2013: After the National Lung Screening Trial found three annual LDCT screenings were associated with a 20% relative mortality reduction, compared with annual chest x-ray, the ACS issued a recommendation for annual screening with LDCT: in persons 55-74 years with a pack‐year history of 30 or more who currently smoke or formerly smoked but had not exceeded 15 years since quitting and had no life-limiting morbidity.
 

Future mortality

Although tobacco controls are expected to reduce age‐adjusted lung cancer mortality in the United States by 79% from 2015 to 2065, 4.4 million lung cancer deaths are projected to occur in this period, the authors stated. “A large fraction of these deaths can be prevented if we embrace the urgent challenge to improve our ability to identify the population at risk and apply our knowledge to achieve high rates of participation in regular [lung cancer screening].”

The study was funded by the American Cancer Society Guideline Development Group and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The authors disclosed no relevant competing interests. Dr. Golden and Dr. Didwania had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare with regard to their comments.

The American Cancer Society has updated its screening guidelines for lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-specific deaths in the United States and the largest driver of potential years of life lost from cancer.

The 2023 screening guidance, aimed principally at reducing lung cancer mortality in asymptomatic but high-risk, tobacco-exposed individuals, expands the age eligibility and lowers both the former smoking history and the years since quitting threshold for screening with low-dose CT (LDCT).

It is based on the most recent evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of screening and lung cancer risk in persons who formerly smoked, wrote the ACS’s Guideline Development Group led by Robert A. Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science. The new guidelines, which replace the 2013 statement, appear in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians.

The primary evidence source for the update was a systematic review of LDCT lung cancer screening conducted for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and published in 2021.

The new guideline continues a trend of expanding eligibility for lung cancer screening, which has had low uptake, to prevent more deaths. “Recent studies have shown that extending the age for persons who smoked and formerly smoked, eliminating the ‘years since quitting’ requirement, and lowering the pack-per-year recommendation could make a real difference in saving lives,” Dr. Smith said. “The relative risk of developing lung cancer in people who have smoked most of their life compared to people who never smoked is very high – about 70 times the risk.” Although lung cancer is the third most common malignancy in the United States, it accounts for more deaths than colorectal, breast, prostate, and cervical cancers combined.

The recommendation for annual LDCT for at-risk persons remains unchanged from 2013.

Among the 2023 eligibility changes:

• Age: Expanded to 50-80 years from 55-74 years.
• Smoking status: Changed to current or previous smoker from current smoker or smoker who quit within past 15 years (number of years since quitting no longer a criterion to start or stop screening). Dr. Smith noted that both the 2013 guidelines and other groups’ updated recommendations retained the eligibility cutoff of 15 years since smoking cessation. “But had their risk declined to a level that just did not justify continuing screening?” he asked. “There wasn’t an answer to that question, so we needed to look carefully at the absolute risk of lung cancer in persons who formerly smoked compared with people who currently smoked and people who never smoked.”
• Smoking history: Reduced to 20 or more pack-years (average of 20 cigarettes a day) versus 30 or more pack-years.
• Exclusions: Expanded to health conditions that may increase harm or hinder further evaluation, surgery, or treatment; comorbidities limiting life expectancy to fewer than 5 years; unwillingness to accept treatment for screen‐detected cancer, which was changed from 2013’s life‐limiting comorbid conditions, metallic implants or devices in the chest or back, home oxygen supplementation.

In addition, decision-making should be a shared process with a health professional providing the patient with information on the benefits, limitations, and harms of LDCT screening, as well as prescreening advice on smoking cessation and the offer of assistive counseling and pharmocotherapy.

“Overall, lung cancer screening remains one of the least used early cancer detection modalities in clinical practice. The new guidance opens up lung cancer screening to all former smokers regardless of time of cessation,” said internist William E. Golden, MD, MACP, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “This may promote greater uptake in concert with greater availability of low-radiation CT scanning.”

While agreeing the expanded criteria will enfranchise nearly 5 million current and former U.S. smokers for screening and may reduce deaths, internist Aarati D. Didwania, MD, MMSCI, MACP, a professor of medicine and medical education at Northwestern University, Chicago, warned that increasing actual uptake may be an uphill battle. “The practical part of the equation is seeing that the scans get done. There is often a lag between a recommendation of a yearly test and getting insurance coverage for it, and many disadvantaged people face barriers.” Then there’s the knowledge gap. “Patients and doctors have to know what the new guidelines are and who has access,” she said.

Reaching the target population in rural areas is particularly challenging with the greater distances to imaging centers. Another barrier is that most electronic health records do not identify eligible patients based on smoking and pack‐year history.

In Dr. Didwania’s view, professional medical societies have an important role to play in educating their members, and through them, patients. “Disseminating information about the new recommendations is the first step and would be incredibly helpful.”
 

A brief history of lung cancer screening

1950s: By mid-20th century, the causal association between tobacco exposure and lung cancer became clear and by the late 1950s attempts were made to develop a lung cancer screening strategy for high‐risk individuals, commonly with the combination of sputum cytology and chest x-ray.

1970s: The ACS recommended annual testing for current or former smokers with chest x-ray (and sometimes sputum cytology).

1980: The ACS withdrew the above recommendation for regular radiographic screening after randomized controlled trials failed to yield convincing evidence that such screening saved lives.

2013: After the National Lung Screening Trial found three annual LDCT screenings were associated with a 20% relative mortality reduction, compared with annual chest x-ray, the ACS issued a recommendation for annual screening with LDCT: in persons 55-74 years with a pack‐year history of 30 or more who currently smoke or formerly smoked but had not exceeded 15 years since quitting and had no life-limiting morbidity.
 

Future mortality

Although tobacco controls are expected to reduce age‐adjusted lung cancer mortality in the United States by 79% from 2015 to 2065, 4.4 million lung cancer deaths are projected to occur in this period, the authors stated. “A large fraction of these deaths can be prevented if we embrace the urgent challenge to improve our ability to identify the population at risk and apply our knowledge to achieve high rates of participation in regular [lung cancer screening].”

The study was funded by the American Cancer Society Guideline Development Group and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The authors disclosed no relevant competing interests. Dr. Golden and Dr. Didwania had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare with regard to their comments.

The American Cancer Society has updated its screening guidelines for lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-specific deaths in the United States and the largest driver of potential years of life lost from cancer.

The 2023 screening guidance, aimed principally at reducing lung cancer mortality in asymptomatic but high-risk, tobacco-exposed individuals, expands the age eligibility and lowers both the former smoking history and the years since quitting threshold for screening with low-dose CT (LDCT).

It is based on the most recent evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of screening and lung cancer risk in persons who formerly smoked, wrote the ACS’s Guideline Development Group led by Robert A. Smith, PhD, senior vice president of early cancer detection science. The new guidelines, which replace the 2013 statement, appear in CA: A Cancer Journal for Physicians.

The primary evidence source for the update was a systematic review of LDCT lung cancer screening conducted for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and published in 2021.

The new guideline continues a trend of expanding eligibility for lung cancer screening, which has had low uptake, to prevent more deaths. “Recent studies have shown that extending the age for persons who smoked and formerly smoked, eliminating the ‘years since quitting’ requirement, and lowering the pack-per-year recommendation could make a real difference in saving lives,” Dr. Smith said. “The relative risk of developing lung cancer in people who have smoked most of their life compared to people who never smoked is very high – about 70 times the risk.” Although lung cancer is the third most common malignancy in the United States, it accounts for more deaths than colorectal, breast, prostate, and cervical cancers combined.

The recommendation for annual LDCT for at-risk persons remains unchanged from 2013.

Among the 2023 eligibility changes:

• Age: Expanded to 50-80 years from 55-74 years.
• Smoking status: Changed to current or previous smoker from current smoker or smoker who quit within past 15 years (number of years since quitting no longer a criterion to start or stop screening). Dr. Smith noted that both the 2013 guidelines and other groups’ updated recommendations retained the eligibility cutoff of 15 years since smoking cessation. “But had their risk declined to a level that just did not justify continuing screening?” he asked. “There wasn’t an answer to that question, so we needed to look carefully at the absolute risk of lung cancer in persons who formerly smoked compared with people who currently smoked and people who never smoked.”
• Smoking history: Reduced to 20 or more pack-years (average of 20 cigarettes a day) versus 30 or more pack-years.
• Exclusions: Expanded to health conditions that may increase harm or hinder further evaluation, surgery, or treatment; comorbidities limiting life expectancy to fewer than 5 years; unwillingness to accept treatment for screen‐detected cancer, which was changed from 2013’s life‐limiting comorbid conditions, metallic implants or devices in the chest or back, home oxygen supplementation.

In addition, decision-making should be a shared process with a health professional providing the patient with information on the benefits, limitations, and harms of LDCT screening, as well as prescreening advice on smoking cessation and the offer of assistive counseling and pharmocotherapy.

“Overall, lung cancer screening remains one of the least used early cancer detection modalities in clinical practice. The new guidance opens up lung cancer screening to all former smokers regardless of time of cessation,” said internist William E. Golden, MD, MACP, a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “This may promote greater uptake in concert with greater availability of low-radiation CT scanning.”

While agreeing the expanded criteria will enfranchise nearly 5 million current and former U.S. smokers for screening and may reduce deaths, internist Aarati D. Didwania, MD, MMSCI, MACP, a professor of medicine and medical education at Northwestern University, Chicago, warned that increasing actual uptake may be an uphill battle. “The practical part of the equation is seeing that the scans get done. There is often a lag between a recommendation of a yearly test and getting insurance coverage for it, and many disadvantaged people face barriers.” Then there’s the knowledge gap. “Patients and doctors have to know what the new guidelines are and who has access,” she said.

Reaching the target population in rural areas is particularly challenging with the greater distances to imaging centers. Another barrier is that most electronic health records do not identify eligible patients based on smoking and pack‐year history.

In Dr. Didwania’s view, professional medical societies have an important role to play in educating their members, and through them, patients. “Disseminating information about the new recommendations is the first step and would be incredibly helpful.”
 

A brief history of lung cancer screening

1950s: By mid-20th century, the causal association between tobacco exposure and lung cancer became clear and by the late 1950s attempts were made to develop a lung cancer screening strategy for high‐risk individuals, commonly with the combination of sputum cytology and chest x-ray.

1970s: The ACS recommended annual testing for current or former smokers with chest x-ray (and sometimes sputum cytology).

1980: The ACS withdrew the above recommendation for regular radiographic screening after randomized controlled trials failed to yield convincing evidence that such screening saved lives.

2013: After the National Lung Screening Trial found three annual LDCT screenings were associated with a 20% relative mortality reduction, compared with annual chest x-ray, the ACS issued a recommendation for annual screening with LDCT: in persons 55-74 years with a pack‐year history of 30 or more who currently smoke or formerly smoked but had not exceeded 15 years since quitting and had no life-limiting morbidity.
 

Future mortality

Although tobacco controls are expected to reduce age‐adjusted lung cancer mortality in the United States by 79% from 2015 to 2065, 4.4 million lung cancer deaths are projected to occur in this period, the authors stated. “A large fraction of these deaths can be prevented if we embrace the urgent challenge to improve our ability to identify the population at risk and apply our knowledge to achieve high rates of participation in regular [lung cancer screening].”

The study was funded by the American Cancer Society Guideline Development Group and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The authors disclosed no relevant competing interests. Dr. Golden and Dr. Didwania had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare with regard to their comments.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been thinking lately about treatments after initial therapy for non–small cell lung cancers, what people often call second-line therapy.

I think the first thought is that, for all the regimens that are available and tested, the results are clearly not as good as seen with first-line therapy. I’ll get into some specifics in a second. That being the case, it’s really important to make the best choice for first-line therapy.

The second thing that is absolutely critical is to very carefully assess when that first-line therapy has stopped working and whether there is a need for a new systemic therapy. We very often have these situations where there is an oligoprogression, and by treating a single symptomatic lesion, you may get the patient in a very good place and may continue initial therapy. Very often, there is inconsequential growth of the cancer.

For example, if there is a 21% increase in the size of a primary tumor that is not associated with any symptoms in a person who is living their life and is not having any severe side effects, you have to think long and hard about changing that therapy. I wouldn’t even give a consolidative therapy there if they’re really doing well. Obviously, consolidative therapies are a new therapy, and they have their side effects with them as well.

Please think really carefully and weigh all factors, from the patient, the toxicity, and the benefit, before changing the initial systemic therapy. I would continue it as long as possible.

With second-line therapy, sadly, none of them have a huge benefit anywhere near what we see in first line. All the rates of response are well under 50%. Just getting into it, you’re not going to shrink the cancer by more than 30% in the majority of patients, so you have to think long and hard about making that switch.

Second, our standard still remains docetaxel, and the numbers on docetaxel are really not great. It’s about a 15% rate of response and a median survival of about 5 months. Now, by adding other RET drugs to docetaxel, you can achieve better results. By adding ramucirumab, for example, the response rate just about doubles and the duration of response and progression-free survival both go up by a few months.

For patients who have KRAS G12C, in the randomized trial that has been done so far, over docetaxel, you get, again, a doubling of response. For patients where response is important, you really double that response rate, but also you get an improvement in median progression-free survival by, again, 2-3 months. There is benefit there in terms of response and progression-free survival; however, it’s not huge.

Please remember, if you’re choosing to use docetaxel, to think about using alternative dosages and schedules. When you look at the course of a person treated with docetaxel over, let’s say, a 6-month period, you often see that doses are held. When you look at the total dose, it’s very similar to an every-2-week dose of a lower amount. I routinely give a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks.

I urge you to look at the progress of one of your patients over a 6-month period who was given the 75-mg dose. Many of those doses end up getting held. When all is said and done, you give a lower dose over that whole time from that 75-mg dose. Giving 35 mg/m² or a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks, you end up getting almost exactly the same amount of docetaxel. There’s really no convincing evidence that the higher dose is better. It’s clearly harder on the patient.

I’ve shared some thoughts about second-line therapy. We really have to do better. Please make sure that your first-line therapy is the best you can give. Make sure you’ve gotten everything out of that first-line therapy and that it will be continued as long as possible, as long as you and the patient have concluded that there’s benefit. When you do switch, try to give the most effective regimen that you have, which would be docetaxel with ramucirumab, or for patients with KRAS G12C, giving adagrasib or sotorasib at this point.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been thinking lately about treatments after initial therapy for non–small cell lung cancers, what people often call second-line therapy.

I think the first thought is that, for all the regimens that are available and tested, the results are clearly not as good as seen with first-line therapy. I’ll get into some specifics in a second. That being the case, it’s really important to make the best choice for first-line therapy.

The second thing that is absolutely critical is to very carefully assess when that first-line therapy has stopped working and whether there is a need for a new systemic therapy. We very often have these situations where there is an oligoprogression, and by treating a single symptomatic lesion, you may get the patient in a very good place and may continue initial therapy. Very often, there is inconsequential growth of the cancer.

For example, if there is a 21% increase in the size of a primary tumor that is not associated with any symptoms in a person who is living their life and is not having any severe side effects, you have to think long and hard about changing that therapy. I wouldn’t even give a consolidative therapy there if they’re really doing well. Obviously, consolidative therapies are a new therapy, and they have their side effects with them as well.

Please think really carefully and weigh all factors, from the patient, the toxicity, and the benefit, before changing the initial systemic therapy. I would continue it as long as possible.

With second-line therapy, sadly, none of them have a huge benefit anywhere near what we see in first line. All the rates of response are well under 50%. Just getting into it, you’re not going to shrink the cancer by more than 30% in the majority of patients, so you have to think long and hard about making that switch.

Second, our standard still remains docetaxel, and the numbers on docetaxel are really not great. It’s about a 15% rate of response and a median survival of about 5 months. Now, by adding other RET drugs to docetaxel, you can achieve better results. By adding ramucirumab, for example, the response rate just about doubles and the duration of response and progression-free survival both go up by a few months.

For patients who have KRAS G12C, in the randomized trial that has been done so far, over docetaxel, you get, again, a doubling of response. For patients where response is important, you really double that response rate, but also you get an improvement in median progression-free survival by, again, 2-3 months. There is benefit there in terms of response and progression-free survival; however, it’s not huge.

Please remember, if you’re choosing to use docetaxel, to think about using alternative dosages and schedules. When you look at the course of a person treated with docetaxel over, let’s say, a 6-month period, you often see that doses are held. When you look at the total dose, it’s very similar to an every-2-week dose of a lower amount. I routinely give a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks.

I urge you to look at the progress of one of your patients over a 6-month period who was given the 75-mg dose. Many of those doses end up getting held. When all is said and done, you give a lower dose over that whole time from that 75-mg dose. Giving 35 mg/m² or a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks, you end up getting almost exactly the same amount of docetaxel. There’s really no convincing evidence that the higher dose is better. It’s clearly harder on the patient.

I’ve shared some thoughts about second-line therapy. We really have to do better. Please make sure that your first-line therapy is the best you can give. Make sure you’ve gotten everything out of that first-line therapy and that it will be continued as long as possible, as long as you and the patient have concluded that there’s benefit. When you do switch, try to give the most effective regimen that you have, which would be docetaxel with ramucirumab, or for patients with KRAS G12C, giving adagrasib or sotorasib at this point.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’ve been thinking lately about treatments after initial therapy for non–small cell lung cancers, what people often call second-line therapy.

I think the first thought is that, for all the regimens that are available and tested, the results are clearly not as good as seen with first-line therapy. I’ll get into some specifics in a second. That being the case, it’s really important to make the best choice for first-line therapy.

The second thing that is absolutely critical is to very carefully assess when that first-line therapy has stopped working and whether there is a need for a new systemic therapy. We very often have these situations where there is an oligoprogression, and by treating a single symptomatic lesion, you may get the patient in a very good place and may continue initial therapy. Very often, there is inconsequential growth of the cancer.

For example, if there is a 21% increase in the size of a primary tumor that is not associated with any symptoms in a person who is living their life and is not having any severe side effects, you have to think long and hard about changing that therapy. I wouldn’t even give a consolidative therapy there if they’re really doing well. Obviously, consolidative therapies are a new therapy, and they have their side effects with them as well.

Please think really carefully and weigh all factors, from the patient, the toxicity, and the benefit, before changing the initial systemic therapy. I would continue it as long as possible.

With second-line therapy, sadly, none of them have a huge benefit anywhere near what we see in first line. All the rates of response are well under 50%. Just getting into it, you’re not going to shrink the cancer by more than 30% in the majority of patients, so you have to think long and hard about making that switch.

Second, our standard still remains docetaxel, and the numbers on docetaxel are really not great. It’s about a 15% rate of response and a median survival of about 5 months. Now, by adding other RET drugs to docetaxel, you can achieve better results. By adding ramucirumab, for example, the response rate just about doubles and the duration of response and progression-free survival both go up by a few months.

For patients who have KRAS G12C, in the randomized trial that has been done so far, over docetaxel, you get, again, a doubling of response. For patients where response is important, you really double that response rate, but also you get an improvement in median progression-free survival by, again, 2-3 months. There is benefit there in terms of response and progression-free survival; however, it’s not huge.

Please remember, if you’re choosing to use docetaxel, to think about using alternative dosages and schedules. When you look at the course of a person treated with docetaxel over, let’s say, a 6-month period, you often see that doses are held. When you look at the total dose, it’s very similar to an every-2-week dose of a lower amount. I routinely give a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks.

I urge you to look at the progress of one of your patients over a 6-month period who was given the 75-mg dose. Many of those doses end up getting held. When all is said and done, you give a lower dose over that whole time from that 75-mg dose. Giving 35 mg/m² or a 60-mg flat dose every 2 weeks, you end up getting almost exactly the same amount of docetaxel. There’s really no convincing evidence that the higher dose is better. It’s clearly harder on the patient.

I’ve shared some thoughts about second-line therapy. We really have to do better. Please make sure that your first-line therapy is the best you can give. Make sure you’ve gotten everything out of that first-line therapy and that it will be continued as long as possible, as long as you and the patient have concluded that there’s benefit. When you do switch, try to give the most effective regimen that you have, which would be docetaxel with ramucirumab, or for patients with KRAS G12C, giving adagrasib or sotorasib at this point.

Dr. Kris is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He reported conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and PUMA.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Key data on lung cancer presented at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2023 meeting focused on eligibility for lung cancer screening, nonadherence to follow-up scans, and race-neutral interpretations of pulmonary function tests in preparation for lobectomy, as reported by Dr Lynn Tanoue of the Yale School of Medicine. Dr Tanoue discusses a study of 1 million people screened for lung cancer using low-dose CT imaging. The study found that 38% of those who did not meet the 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) criteria for screening would now be eligible under the updated 2021 USPTF recommendations.  

The study also showed a lack of adherence to follow-up screening, indicating that only 22% of screened persons returned after 1 year for a subsequent scan. Nonadherence was more common in Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals without insurance. Dr Tanoue highlights the importance of adherence for return screening, noting that two thirds of cancers detected in the National Lung Screening Trial were diagnosed after the initial scan. 

Dr Tanoue also reviews a study examining the implications of adopting a race-neutral interpretation of pulmonary function tests for patients being considered for thoracic surgery. The study looked at data for 3,000 patients who underwent lobectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Center over 20 years and found that 85% were White individuals. Of importance, no difference was found between race-neutral or race-specific models in the association of lung function with risk for pulmonary complications. 

--

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Key data on lung cancer presented at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2023 meeting focused on eligibility for lung cancer screening, nonadherence to follow-up scans, and race-neutral interpretations of pulmonary function tests in preparation for lobectomy, as reported by Dr Lynn Tanoue of the Yale School of Medicine. Dr Tanoue discusses a study of 1 million people screened for lung cancer using low-dose CT imaging. The study found that 38% of those who did not meet the 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) criteria for screening would now be eligible under the updated 2021 USPTF recommendations.  

The study also showed a lack of adherence to follow-up screening, indicating that only 22% of screened persons returned after 1 year for a subsequent scan. Nonadherence was more common in Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals without insurance. Dr Tanoue highlights the importance of adherence for return screening, noting that two thirds of cancers detected in the National Lung Screening Trial were diagnosed after the initial scan. 

Dr Tanoue also reviews a study examining the implications of adopting a race-neutral interpretation of pulmonary function tests for patients being considered for thoracic surgery. The study looked at data for 3,000 patients who underwent lobectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Center over 20 years and found that 85% were White individuals. Of importance, no difference was found between race-neutral or race-specific models in the association of lung function with risk for pulmonary complications. 

--

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Key data on lung cancer presented at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2023 meeting focused on eligibility for lung cancer screening, nonadherence to follow-up scans, and race-neutral interpretations of pulmonary function tests in preparation for lobectomy, as reported by Dr Lynn Tanoue of the Yale School of Medicine. Dr Tanoue discusses a study of 1 million people screened for lung cancer using low-dose CT imaging. The study found that 38% of those who did not meet the 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) criteria for screening would now be eligible under the updated 2021 USPTF recommendations.  

The study also showed a lack of adherence to follow-up screening, indicating that only 22% of screened persons returned after 1 year for a subsequent scan. Nonadherence was more common in Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals without insurance. Dr Tanoue highlights the importance of adherence for return screening, noting that two thirds of cancers detected in the National Lung Screening Trial were diagnosed after the initial scan. 

Dr Tanoue also reviews a study examining the implications of adopting a race-neutral interpretation of pulmonary function tests for patients being considered for thoracic surgery. The study looked at data for 3,000 patients who underwent lobectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Center over 20 years and found that 85% were White individuals. Of importance, no difference was found between race-neutral or race-specific models in the association of lung function with risk for pulmonary complications. 

--

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir doesn’t reduce the incidence of most post-COVID conditions, according to a new study. Thromboembolic events are the exception.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective study of 9,593 veterans older than 65 years examined the impact of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir in comparison with no treatment on post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs).
• Researchers coded 31 conditions, including those that fell into cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, and endocrine categories.
• The incidence of PCCs was analyzed 31-180 days after treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The combined incidence of venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism was reduced among patients given nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.
• No statistically significant reduction of other conditions was found.
• Results differ from the conclusions of a smaller study that found that the incidence of 10 of 13 PCCs was lower.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that considerations about PCCs may not be an important factor in COVID-19 treatment decisions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine. George Ioannou, MD, director of hepatology at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, led the study.

LIMITATIONS:

A large number of outcomes were observed, so it’s possible that the association between treatment with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and reduced incidence of thromboembolic events occurred by chance.

Data on COVID-19 treatments and PCCs may be incomplete. The long-term effects of PCCs may not have been fully captured by the ICD-10, which was used for diagnosis codes.

Electronic health records did not accurately capture the symptom burden or the date symptoms began. Patients in the treatment arm may have had more symptoms than matched control persons who were not treated.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported relationships with the Korean Diabetes Association, the American Diabetes Association, the International Society for the Diabetic Foot, Quality Insights, Brown University, and the Society for Women in Urology, among others.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with asthma and comorbid gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the biologic tezepelumab (Tezspire, Amgen) had similar efficacy at reducing exacerbations, improving lung function, and symptom control as observed in patients with asthma alone, according to a new post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY and phase 3 NAVIGATOR clinical trials.

GERD occurs in about 60% of asthma patients, and the comorbidity is associated with a greater risk of asthma exacerbations. “As we start doing subgroup analyses, we are looking at different comorbidities and reflux is one that’s very common and very impactful on asthma outcomes in a negative way, so it became an area of interest,” said Njira Lugogo, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). She is a professor of internal medicine and pulmonary critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The analysis confirmed other findings, with comorbid GERD associated with more exacerbations, use of maintenance steroids, and high-dose inhaled steroids. “They had more disease activity, and the effect [of tezepelumab treatment] was similar whether you had reflux or didn’t have reflux. It did seem like the people without reflux had a slightly higher reduction in exacerbations, so maybe there is a slight difference, but overall it looked like both groups were really improving,” said Dr. Lugogo.

Tezepelumab is a newer biologic, having received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2021. It targets the epithelial cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which contributes allergic inflammatory responses by acting on various innate immune cells, including dendritic cells, mast cells, and CD34+ progenitor cells. It is upregulated in the airways of asthma patients, with higher levels linked to more severe disease. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene that codes TSLP has also been found to be protective against asthma, atopic asthma, and airway hyper-responsiveness.

Dr. Lugogo noted that TSLP could be a factor in how GERD may worsen trigger or worsen asthma. It is produced in the epithelium of the upper airway in response to injury, which could include aspiration into bronchial tubes attributable to GERD, and this could lead to a downstream inflammatory and immune response. “Reducing the production of or at least blocking TSLP from an epithelium that’s being irritated by acid reflux could have potential benefits. On the reverse side, could the continued presence of reflux blunt the expected response [to tezepelumab]? If someone has very severe reflux, maybe you’ve treated their asthma with tezepelumab, and they’re still having symptoms. Could it be a masquerading issue [where] you have untreated reflux contributing to ongoing symptoms, which you’re attributing to not being related to asthma? So it’s looking at it in two different ways,” said Dr. Lugogo.

TSLP is the only biologic available to treat patients with non–type 2 inflammation, which includes about 10% of adult patients, according to Dr. Lugogo. Its mechanism also influences eosinophilic and allergic asthma. When tezepelumab first became available, Dr. Lugogo noticed that physicians tended to switch to it from another biologic rather than starting it up front, but that may be changing. “I feel like more and more people are starting it up front as a therapeutic intervention, so there seems to be more and more people embracing its use in the treatment of severe asthma,” she said.

The analysis included 294 patients with asthma and GERD and 1,040 with asthma alone. Patients in the GERD comorbidity group were older (55.0 versus 48.6 years), had a higher mean body mass index (30.8 versus 27.8), and were more likely to be female (67.3% versus 63.0%).

Maintenance oral corticosteroid use was higher in the GERD group (17.0% versus 6.9%), as was use of high inhaled corticosteroid dose (78.2% versus 67.0%), frequency of nasal polyps in the previous 2 years (21.4% versus 13.8%), and experience of more than two exacerbations in the previous year (42.2% versus 34.6%).

There was a 65% reduction (95% confidence interval, 50%-76%) in annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo with tezepelumab treatment in the GERD group, compared with a 58% reduction in the asthma-only group (95% CI, 48%-66%). The drug led to a 0.10 increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second versus placebo (95% CI, 0.00-0.19) at week 52 in the GERD group, versus 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.20) in the asthma-only group. Tezepelumab also improved week 52 ACQ-6 scores in the GERD group (–0.39 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.63 to –0.14) and the asthma-only group (–0.32 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.45 to –0.19).

The study adds to the evidence supporting tezepelumab as a promising new therapy, according to Muhammad Adrish, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study. “I think that this is a very interesting analysis in the sense that gastric reflux disease is a frequent comorbid condition that we see in patients with asthma, and a lot of these patients can have poor outcomes. When you look at the results from the data, you see that regardless of how sick they were and how much medication utilization these patients have at baseline, they still had a pretty decent response to tezepelumab. That speaks to the efficacy of that drug along a wide spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Adrish, who is an associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR studies were funded by Amgen. Dr. Lugogo has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Regeneron, TEVA, Avillion, Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, GSK, and Janssen. Dr. Adrish has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with asthma and comorbid gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the biologic tezepelumab (Tezspire, Amgen) had similar efficacy at reducing exacerbations, improving lung function, and symptom control as observed in patients with asthma alone, according to a new post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY and phase 3 NAVIGATOR clinical trials.

GERD occurs in about 60% of asthma patients, and the comorbidity is associated with a greater risk of asthma exacerbations. “As we start doing subgroup analyses, we are looking at different comorbidities and reflux is one that’s very common and very impactful on asthma outcomes in a negative way, so it became an area of interest,” said Njira Lugogo, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). She is a professor of internal medicine and pulmonary critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The analysis confirmed other findings, with comorbid GERD associated with more exacerbations, use of maintenance steroids, and high-dose inhaled steroids. “They had more disease activity, and the effect [of tezepelumab treatment] was similar whether you had reflux or didn’t have reflux. It did seem like the people without reflux had a slightly higher reduction in exacerbations, so maybe there is a slight difference, but overall it looked like both groups were really improving,” said Dr. Lugogo.

Tezepelumab is a newer biologic, having received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2021. It targets the epithelial cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which contributes allergic inflammatory responses by acting on various innate immune cells, including dendritic cells, mast cells, and CD34+ progenitor cells. It is upregulated in the airways of asthma patients, with higher levels linked to more severe disease. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene that codes TSLP has also been found to be protective against asthma, atopic asthma, and airway hyper-responsiveness.

Dr. Lugogo noted that TSLP could be a factor in how GERD may worsen trigger or worsen asthma. It is produced in the epithelium of the upper airway in response to injury, which could include aspiration into bronchial tubes attributable to GERD, and this could lead to a downstream inflammatory and immune response. “Reducing the production of or at least blocking TSLP from an epithelium that’s being irritated by acid reflux could have potential benefits. On the reverse side, could the continued presence of reflux blunt the expected response [to tezepelumab]? If someone has very severe reflux, maybe you’ve treated their asthma with tezepelumab, and they’re still having symptoms. Could it be a masquerading issue [where] you have untreated reflux contributing to ongoing symptoms, which you’re attributing to not being related to asthma? So it’s looking at it in two different ways,” said Dr. Lugogo.

TSLP is the only biologic available to treat patients with non–type 2 inflammation, which includes about 10% of adult patients, according to Dr. Lugogo. Its mechanism also influences eosinophilic and allergic asthma. When tezepelumab first became available, Dr. Lugogo noticed that physicians tended to switch to it from another biologic rather than starting it up front, but that may be changing. “I feel like more and more people are starting it up front as a therapeutic intervention, so there seems to be more and more people embracing its use in the treatment of severe asthma,” she said.

The analysis included 294 patients with asthma and GERD and 1,040 with asthma alone. Patients in the GERD comorbidity group were older (55.0 versus 48.6 years), had a higher mean body mass index (30.8 versus 27.8), and were more likely to be female (67.3% versus 63.0%).

Maintenance oral corticosteroid use was higher in the GERD group (17.0% versus 6.9%), as was use of high inhaled corticosteroid dose (78.2% versus 67.0%), frequency of nasal polyps in the previous 2 years (21.4% versus 13.8%), and experience of more than two exacerbations in the previous year (42.2% versus 34.6%).

There was a 65% reduction (95% confidence interval, 50%-76%) in annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo with tezepelumab treatment in the GERD group, compared with a 58% reduction in the asthma-only group (95% CI, 48%-66%). The drug led to a 0.10 increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second versus placebo (95% CI, 0.00-0.19) at week 52 in the GERD group, versus 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.20) in the asthma-only group. Tezepelumab also improved week 52 ACQ-6 scores in the GERD group (–0.39 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.63 to –0.14) and the asthma-only group (–0.32 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.45 to –0.19).

The study adds to the evidence supporting tezepelumab as a promising new therapy, according to Muhammad Adrish, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study. “I think that this is a very interesting analysis in the sense that gastric reflux disease is a frequent comorbid condition that we see in patients with asthma, and a lot of these patients can have poor outcomes. When you look at the results from the data, you see that regardless of how sick they were and how much medication utilization these patients have at baseline, they still had a pretty decent response to tezepelumab. That speaks to the efficacy of that drug along a wide spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Adrish, who is an associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR studies were funded by Amgen. Dr. Lugogo has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Regeneron, TEVA, Avillion, Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, GSK, and Janssen. Dr. Adrish has no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with asthma and comorbid gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the biologic tezepelumab (Tezspire, Amgen) had similar efficacy at reducing exacerbations, improving lung function, and symptom control as observed in patients with asthma alone, according to a new post-hoc analysis of the phase 2b PATHWAY and phase 3 NAVIGATOR clinical trials.

GERD occurs in about 60% of asthma patients, and the comorbidity is associated with a greater risk of asthma exacerbations. “As we start doing subgroup analyses, we are looking at different comorbidities and reflux is one that’s very common and very impactful on asthma outcomes in a negative way, so it became an area of interest,” said Njira Lugogo, MD, who presented the study during a poster session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST). She is a professor of internal medicine and pulmonary critical care at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The analysis confirmed other findings, with comorbid GERD associated with more exacerbations, use of maintenance steroids, and high-dose inhaled steroids. “They had more disease activity, and the effect [of tezepelumab treatment] was similar whether you had reflux or didn’t have reflux. It did seem like the people without reflux had a slightly higher reduction in exacerbations, so maybe there is a slight difference, but overall it looked like both groups were really improving,” said Dr. Lugogo.

Tezepelumab is a newer biologic, having received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2021. It targets the epithelial cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP), which contributes allergic inflammatory responses by acting on various innate immune cells, including dendritic cells, mast cells, and CD34+ progenitor cells. It is upregulated in the airways of asthma patients, with higher levels linked to more severe disease. A single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene that codes TSLP has also been found to be protective against asthma, atopic asthma, and airway hyper-responsiveness.

Dr. Lugogo noted that TSLP could be a factor in how GERD may worsen trigger or worsen asthma. It is produced in the epithelium of the upper airway in response to injury, which could include aspiration into bronchial tubes attributable to GERD, and this could lead to a downstream inflammatory and immune response. “Reducing the production of or at least blocking TSLP from an epithelium that’s being irritated by acid reflux could have potential benefits. On the reverse side, could the continued presence of reflux blunt the expected response [to tezepelumab]? If someone has very severe reflux, maybe you’ve treated their asthma with tezepelumab, and they’re still having symptoms. Could it be a masquerading issue [where] you have untreated reflux contributing to ongoing symptoms, which you’re attributing to not being related to asthma? So it’s looking at it in two different ways,” said Dr. Lugogo.

TSLP is the only biologic available to treat patients with non–type 2 inflammation, which includes about 10% of adult patients, according to Dr. Lugogo. Its mechanism also influences eosinophilic and allergic asthma. When tezepelumab first became available, Dr. Lugogo noticed that physicians tended to switch to it from another biologic rather than starting it up front, but that may be changing. “I feel like more and more people are starting it up front as a therapeutic intervention, so there seems to be more and more people embracing its use in the treatment of severe asthma,” she said.

The analysis included 294 patients with asthma and GERD and 1,040 with asthma alone. Patients in the GERD comorbidity group were older (55.0 versus 48.6 years), had a higher mean body mass index (30.8 versus 27.8), and were more likely to be female (67.3% versus 63.0%).

Maintenance oral corticosteroid use was higher in the GERD group (17.0% versus 6.9%), as was use of high inhaled corticosteroid dose (78.2% versus 67.0%), frequency of nasal polyps in the previous 2 years (21.4% versus 13.8%), and experience of more than two exacerbations in the previous year (42.2% versus 34.6%).

There was a 65% reduction (95% confidence interval, 50%-76%) in annualized asthma exacerbation rate versus placebo with tezepelumab treatment in the GERD group, compared with a 58% reduction in the asthma-only group (95% CI, 48%-66%). The drug led to a 0.10 increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second versus placebo (95% CI, 0.00-0.19) at week 52 in the GERD group, versus 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.20) in the asthma-only group. Tezepelumab also improved week 52 ACQ-6 scores in the GERD group (–0.39 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.63 to –0.14) and the asthma-only group (–0.32 versus placebo; 95% CI, –0.45 to –0.19).

The study adds to the evidence supporting tezepelumab as a promising new therapy, according to Muhammad Adrish, MD, who attended the poster session and was asked to comment on the study. “I think that this is a very interesting analysis in the sense that gastric reflux disease is a frequent comorbid condition that we see in patients with asthma, and a lot of these patients can have poor outcomes. When you look at the results from the data, you see that regardless of how sick they were and how much medication utilization these patients have at baseline, they still had a pretty decent response to tezepelumab. That speaks to the efficacy of that drug along a wide spectrum of patients,” said Dr. Adrish, who is an associate professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The PATHWAY and NAVIGATOR studies were funded by Amgen. Dr. Lugogo has advised or consulted for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Regeneron, TEVA, Avillion, Sanofi, Novartis, Genentech, GSK, and Janssen. Dr. Adrish has no relevant financial disclosures.

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has no significant impact on asthma symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis up to a year after the procedure, a study of 64 patients shows.

Although ESS is effective in relieving chronic rhinosinusitis, whether it leads to improvement of asthma severity for patients with both conditions remains unclear, Anyull Dayanna Bohórquez Caballero said in a presentation at the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) 2023 annual meeting.

The study “offers a unique approach to explore the effects of endoscopic sinus surgery in a real-world context, with valuable insights that differ from previous research,” Dr. Bohórquez Caballero, an international medical graduate and research fellow of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

Under the leadership of senior author Angela Donaldson, MD, Dr. Bohórquez Caballero and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville analyzed data from 185 adults with both asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis who underwent ESS at the clinic between 2013 and 2023. Asthma severity was evaluated up to 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. Patients’ asthma severity was classified as mild, moderate, or severe on the basis of current Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines using medication requirements.

The final study population included 64 patients; 42 of these (66.7%) had chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Outcomes included differences in asthma severity, asthma medication doses, and the number of medications.

Overall, there was no significant difference in measures of mild, moderate, or severe asthma before and after ESS in a McNemar paired test (P values: .130, .999, and .288, respectively). Similarly, no difference was found before and after ESS in terms of total inhaled corticosteroid dose (P = .999), number of medications prescribed (P = .157), or control of the disease (P = .078).

The findings were limited by the relatively small number of patients. The study is the first known to assess the real-world impact of ESS on asthma severity, said Bohórquez Caballero.
 

Expected reduction in asthma severity not seen

Past studies have suggested that ESS improves parameters such as pulmonary function test results or sinonasal outcomes, Dr. Bohórquez Caballero told this news organization. “Our findings indicate that ESS does not significantly impact asthma severity or trends in treatment, including the number and/or dose of medications, in everyday practice.

Our study also identified crucial opportunities to reinforce interdisciplinary follow-up after ESS,” she noted, and it provides a comprehensive depiction of the outcomes experienced by patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and asthma who undergo ESS.

“We were expecting a reduction in severity or a decrease in the dose of inhaled corticosteroid therapies, and we expected to see a translation from previous evidence into clinical practice; however, we did not,” said Dr. Bohórquez Caballero.

“The take-home message is that while there is a strong correlation between CRS and asthma, it does not appear that ESS alone improves real-world treatment based on asthma severity,” she said. “However, our findings have shown that patients may experience a longer period without the need for a reliever medication in the early postoperative period.”

Looking ahead, “We want to explore what happens 5 or 6 months after sinus surgery that would explain the sudden need for a reliever medication,” she added. “Future studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of ESS on asthma severity as it relates to modifications of asthma regimens.”
 

Data important for patient discussions

The current study is important because of the frequency of comorbid asthma among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, Megan Durr, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“When we are considering functional endoscopy sinus surgery with patients, we are often asked if the surgery will impact the severity of their asthma symptoms,” said Dr. Durr, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“I am surprised the study did not see any difference in asthma severity after sinus surgery, as we often talk to patients about the unified airway that refers to the shared epidemiologic and pathophysiologic relationship between the upper and lower airways,” she told this news organization.

“This study will allow us to have a more informed evidenced-based discussion with patients and their primary care providers and/or pulmonologists” about what to expect for asthma outcomes following surgery, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Durr has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has no significant impact on asthma symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis up to a year after the procedure, a study of 64 patients shows.

Although ESS is effective in relieving chronic rhinosinusitis, whether it leads to improvement of asthma severity for patients with both conditions remains unclear, Anyull Dayanna Bohórquez Caballero said in a presentation at the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) 2023 annual meeting.

The study “offers a unique approach to explore the effects of endoscopic sinus surgery in a real-world context, with valuable insights that differ from previous research,” Dr. Bohórquez Caballero, an international medical graduate and research fellow of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

Under the leadership of senior author Angela Donaldson, MD, Dr. Bohórquez Caballero and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville analyzed data from 185 adults with both asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis who underwent ESS at the clinic between 2013 and 2023. Asthma severity was evaluated up to 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. Patients’ asthma severity was classified as mild, moderate, or severe on the basis of current Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines using medication requirements.

The final study population included 64 patients; 42 of these (66.7%) had chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Outcomes included differences in asthma severity, asthma medication doses, and the number of medications.

Overall, there was no significant difference in measures of mild, moderate, or severe asthma before and after ESS in a McNemar paired test (P values: .130, .999, and .288, respectively). Similarly, no difference was found before and after ESS in terms of total inhaled corticosteroid dose (P = .999), number of medications prescribed (P = .157), or control of the disease (P = .078).

The findings were limited by the relatively small number of patients. The study is the first known to assess the real-world impact of ESS on asthma severity, said Bohórquez Caballero.
 

Expected reduction in asthma severity not seen

Past studies have suggested that ESS improves parameters such as pulmonary function test results or sinonasal outcomes, Dr. Bohórquez Caballero told this news organization. “Our findings indicate that ESS does not significantly impact asthma severity or trends in treatment, including the number and/or dose of medications, in everyday practice.

Our study also identified crucial opportunities to reinforce interdisciplinary follow-up after ESS,” she noted, and it provides a comprehensive depiction of the outcomes experienced by patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and asthma who undergo ESS.

“We were expecting a reduction in severity or a decrease in the dose of inhaled corticosteroid therapies, and we expected to see a translation from previous evidence into clinical practice; however, we did not,” said Dr. Bohórquez Caballero.

“The take-home message is that while there is a strong correlation between CRS and asthma, it does not appear that ESS alone improves real-world treatment based on asthma severity,” she said. “However, our findings have shown that patients may experience a longer period without the need for a reliever medication in the early postoperative period.”

Looking ahead, “We want to explore what happens 5 or 6 months after sinus surgery that would explain the sudden need for a reliever medication,” she added. “Future studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of ESS on asthma severity as it relates to modifications of asthma regimens.”
 

Data important for patient discussions

The current study is important because of the frequency of comorbid asthma among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, Megan Durr, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“When we are considering functional endoscopy sinus surgery with patients, we are often asked if the surgery will impact the severity of their asthma symptoms,” said Dr. Durr, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“I am surprised the study did not see any difference in asthma severity after sinus surgery, as we often talk to patients about the unified airway that refers to the shared epidemiologic and pathophysiologic relationship between the upper and lower airways,” she told this news organization.

“This study will allow us to have a more informed evidenced-based discussion with patients and their primary care providers and/or pulmonologists” about what to expect for asthma outcomes following surgery, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Durr has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has no significant impact on asthma symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis up to a year after the procedure, a study of 64 patients shows.

Although ESS is effective in relieving chronic rhinosinusitis, whether it leads to improvement of asthma severity for patients with both conditions remains unclear, Anyull Dayanna Bohórquez Caballero said in a presentation at the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) 2023 annual meeting.

The study “offers a unique approach to explore the effects of endoscopic sinus surgery in a real-world context, with valuable insights that differ from previous research,” Dr. Bohórquez Caballero, an international medical graduate and research fellow of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

Under the leadership of senior author Angela Donaldson, MD, Dr. Bohórquez Caballero and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville analyzed data from 185 adults with both asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis who underwent ESS at the clinic between 2013 and 2023. Asthma severity was evaluated up to 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. Patients’ asthma severity was classified as mild, moderate, or severe on the basis of current Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines using medication requirements.

The final study population included 64 patients; 42 of these (66.7%) had chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Outcomes included differences in asthma severity, asthma medication doses, and the number of medications.

Overall, there was no significant difference in measures of mild, moderate, or severe asthma before and after ESS in a McNemar paired test (P values: .130, .999, and .288, respectively). Similarly, no difference was found before and after ESS in terms of total inhaled corticosteroid dose (P = .999), number of medications prescribed (P = .157), or control of the disease (P = .078).

The findings were limited by the relatively small number of patients. The study is the first known to assess the real-world impact of ESS on asthma severity, said Bohórquez Caballero.
 

Expected reduction in asthma severity not seen

Past studies have suggested that ESS improves parameters such as pulmonary function test results or sinonasal outcomes, Dr. Bohórquez Caballero told this news organization. “Our findings indicate that ESS does not significantly impact asthma severity or trends in treatment, including the number and/or dose of medications, in everyday practice.

Our study also identified crucial opportunities to reinforce interdisciplinary follow-up after ESS,” she noted, and it provides a comprehensive depiction of the outcomes experienced by patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and asthma who undergo ESS.

“We were expecting a reduction in severity or a decrease in the dose of inhaled corticosteroid therapies, and we expected to see a translation from previous evidence into clinical practice; however, we did not,” said Dr. Bohórquez Caballero.

“The take-home message is that while there is a strong correlation between CRS and asthma, it does not appear that ESS alone improves real-world treatment based on asthma severity,” she said. “However, our findings have shown that patients may experience a longer period without the need for a reliever medication in the early postoperative period.”

Looking ahead, “We want to explore what happens 5 or 6 months after sinus surgery that would explain the sudden need for a reliever medication,” she added. “Future studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of ESS on asthma severity as it relates to modifications of asthma regimens.”
 

Data important for patient discussions

The current study is important because of the frequency of comorbid asthma among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis, Megan Durr, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“When we are considering functional endoscopy sinus surgery with patients, we are often asked if the surgery will impact the severity of their asthma symptoms,” said Dr. Durr, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

“I am surprised the study did not see any difference in asthma severity after sinus surgery, as we often talk to patients about the unified airway that refers to the shared epidemiologic and pathophysiologic relationship between the upper and lower airways,” she told this news organization.

“This study will allow us to have a more informed evidenced-based discussion with patients and their primary care providers and/or pulmonologists” about what to expect for asthma outcomes following surgery, she said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Durr has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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