CHEST Physician

MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

MADRID – Should patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant therapy, or both, experts asked during a special session at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2023 Congress.

Though immunotherapy is beneficial in resectable NSCLC, “we actually don’t know how much of the effect [is due to] the adjuvant and how much to the neoadjuvant therapy,” said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland.

Opening the session, Enriqueta Felip, MD, PhD, argued in favor of adjuvant therapy alone in resectable NSCLC.

Adjuvant immunotherapy after adjuvant chemotherapy is already considered standard of care for patients with resected NSCLC who don’t harbor EGFR and ALK mutations, explained Dr. Felip, head of the lung cancer unit at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona.

One major benefit to providing adjuvant therapy is that curative surgery won’t be delayed. Neoadjuvant therapy, on the other hand, leads about 15% of patients to forgo surgery, and about 30% who have both neoadjuvant therapy and surgery end up not receiving their planned adjuvant immunotherapy.

Another benefit: Emerging evidence suggests that the adjuvant-only option can improve disease-free and overall survival in select patients.

In the IMpower010 trial, for instance, adjuvant atezolizumab led to a marked improvement in disease-free survival, compared with best supportive care in patients with stage II-IIIA NSCLC. Patients with programmed death–ligand 1 expression of 50% or higher also demonstrated an overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.42).

In the KEYNOTE-091 trial, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved disease-free survival in all comers vs. placebo in patients with stage IB, II, or IIIA NSCLC who had surgery (HR, 0.76).

Providing adjuvant-only immunotherapy also allows for biomarker testing in resected specimens, Dr. Felip said, which may affect the choice of systemic therapy.

Next, Rafal Dziadziuszko, MD, PhD, argued in favor of neoadjuvant therapy alone in the setting of resectable NSCLC.

The advantages of providing treatment before surgery include initiating systemic treatment at an earlier point when most relapses are distant, possibly reducing the risk for tumor cell seeding during surgery as well as potentially leading to less invasive surgery by shrinking the tumors.

Dr. Dziadziuszko, from the Medical University of Gdansk in Poland, highlighted data from the Checkmate 816 trial, which showed that neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone increased the chance of having a pathologic complete response by nearly 14-fold in patients with IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Patients in the combination arm also demonstrated marked improvements in event-free survival, 31.6 months vs. 20.8 months, and overall survival.

The NADIM II trial, which coupled nivolumab and chemotherapy in stage III disease, found that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy led to a pathologic complete response as well as a 52% improvement in progression-free survival and a 60% improvement in overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.

Despite these findings, several important questions remain, said Dr. Dziadziuszko. How many cycles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy should a patient receive before surgery? Will neoadjuvant therapy lead to treatment-related adverse events that preclude surgery? And for those who don’t have a strong response to neoadjuvant therapy, who should also receive adjuvant immunotherapy and for how long?

The latter question represents the “elephant in the room,” session chair Tony S. K. Mok, MD, chairman, department of clinical oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

With a paucity of overall survival data to provide a definitive answer, oncologists still face the age-old concern of “giving too much therapy in those who don’t need it” and “giving not enough therapy for those who need more,” said Dr. Mok.

Federico Cappuzzo, MD, PhD, argued that the key to patient selection for adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant therapy and surgery lies in who has a pathologic complete response.

The current data suggest that patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy who achieve a pathologic complete response likely do not need adjuvant therapy whereas those who don’t achieve a complete response should receive adjuvant therapy, explained Dr. Cappuzzo, director of the department of oncology and hematology, AUSL della Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

But, Dr. Mok asked, what about patients who achieve a major pathologic response in which the percentage of residual viable tumor is 10% or less or achieve less than a major pathologic response?

Dr. Mok suggested that measurable residual disease, which is indicative of recurrence, could potentially be used to determine the treatment pathway after neoadjuvant therapy and signal who may benefit from adjuvant therapy. However, he noted, studies evaluating the benefit of adjuvant therapy in this population would need to be done.

For patients who don’t respond well to neoadjuvant therapy and may benefit from adjuvant therapy, the question also becomes: “Do we give more of that same therapy?” asked Zofia Piotrowska, MD, a lung cancer medical oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, who was not involved in the debate.

“I think we really need to rethink that paradigm and try to develop new therapies that may work more effectively for those patients, to improve their outcomes,” Dr. Piotrowska said.

Dr. Mok declared relationships with a range of companies, including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceuticals Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and HutchMed. Dr. Felip declared relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F Hoffman–La Roche, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and others. Dr. Dziadziuszko declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Cappuzzo declared relationships with Roche, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Takeda, Lilly, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, and others.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

MADRID – New data from three trials evaluating the bispecific antibody amivantamab (Rybrevant) in EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have revealed a clear benefit, experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.

Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.

Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.

The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.

In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.

The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).

A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.

The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).

The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.

Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”

The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
 

The MARIPOSA trials

The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.

Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.

Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.

For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.

The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).

The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).

Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.

As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.

Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”

Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.

In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).

Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.

The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.

This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).

The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.

The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.

Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.

Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.

The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.

However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”

“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.

PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.

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

MADRID – New data from three trials evaluating the bispecific antibody amivantamab (Rybrevant) in EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have revealed a clear benefit, experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.

Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.

Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.

The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.

In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.

The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).

A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.

The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).

The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.

Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”

The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
 

The MARIPOSA trials

The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.

Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.

Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.

For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.

The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).

The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).

Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.

As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.

Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”

Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.

In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).

Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.

The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.

This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).

The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.

The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.

Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.

Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.

The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.

However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”

“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.

PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.

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

MADRID – New data from three trials evaluating the bispecific antibody amivantamab (Rybrevant) in EGFR-mutated advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have revealed a clear benefit, experts said at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The results of the three trials – PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 – are “really exciting” for patients harboring EGFR mutations, said Silke Gillessen, MD, head of the department of medical oncology, Università della Svizzera Italiana in Lugano, Switzerland, and the ESMO 2023 scientific chair.

Presenting findings from PAPILLON, Nicolas Girard, MD, PhD, highlighted outcomes among patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC. These patients, who represent about 2%-3% of NSCLC cases, have “historically poor” outcomes, with a 5-year overall survival rate of just 8%.

Tumors harboring exon 20 insertions are largely insensitive to targeted and immune checkpoint therapies, explained Dr. Girard, from Curie-Montsouris Thorax Institute, Institut Curie, Paris. That leaves platinum-based chemotherapy as the standard of care, which has “limited efficacy,” he noted.

The FDA approved amivantamab in 2021 for EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy, but the PAPILLON trial explored whether combining the two therapies upfront would provide a more meaningful benefit.

In the trial, 308 treatment-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and documented exon 20 insertions were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. The median age was about 62 years, approximately half were female, and just over 60% were Asian – a similar patient profile as MARIPOSA and MARIPOSA-2.

The results, simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine, showed that amivantamab plus chemotherapy significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS). More specifically, after a median follow-up of 14.9 months, patients receiving the combination had a median PFS of 11.4 months vs. 5.7 months with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio, 0.395; P < .0001). This benefit consistently occurred across predefined subgroups.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of a second progression, with the median not reached vs. 17.2 months with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.493; P = .001).

A higher proportion of patients receiving the combination had an objective response – 73% vs. 47% – and these patients had a longer duration of response as well – 9.7 months vs. 4.4 months.

The overall survival data were immature but showed a trend toward a reduced risk of death for those on the combination (HR, 0.675; P = .106).

The rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were 75% with amivantamab plus chemotherapy and 54% with chemotherapy alone, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of amivantamab occurred in 7% of patients. Pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) was reported in 3% of patients in the combination therapy arm.

Dr. Girard concluded that, with a safety profile “consistent” with that seen for the individual agents, amivantamab plus chemotherapy “represents a new standard of care” for first-line treatment of EGFR exon 20 insertion-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, who was not involved in the research, agreed that this combination is “definitely a new standard of care.”

The effect of giving amivantamab alongside chemotherapy “seems to be really additive,” said Dr. Besse, director of clinical research at the Gustave Roussy Institute and professor of medical oncology at Paris-Saclay University, both in Paris. But he noted that amivantamab is a “challenging drug in terms of toxicity.”
 

The MARIPOSA trials

The two MARIPOSA trials also demonstrated that amivantamab, in combination with other agents, improved PFS among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC.

Byoung Chul Cho, MD, PhD, Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea, presented results from MARIPOSA, which focused on patients with any kind of EGFR mutation.

Although the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) osimertinib is the current standard of care in this first-line setting, “resistance and disease progression are nearly inevitable,” and secondary EGFR and MET mutations may account for up to 50% of tumor resistance, Dr. Cho noted.

Early clinical data suggest that combining amivantamab with the highly selective third-generation EGFR TKI lazertinib leads to clinical activity and durable responses.

For the phase 3 MARIPOSA trial, 1,074 patients with treatment-naive locally advanced or metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib (n = 429), osimertinib alone (n = 429), or lazertinib alone (n = 216).

After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median PFS among patients on the combination was 23.7 months vs. 16.6 months for those on osimertinib alone (HR, 0.70; P < .001) and 18.5 months for those on lazertinib alone.

The PFS benefit observed with amivantamab plus lazertinib occurred across subgroups, including among patients with brain metastases. The combination reduced the risk for extracranial progression or death by 32% and improved median PFS by 9 months, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.68; P < .001).

The risk for a second progression was also lower with the combination (HR, 0.75).

Interim overall survival data suggested a benefit with the combination therapy, compared with osimertinib alone (HR, 0.80; P = .11).

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common among patients treated with the combination vs. osimertinib alone – 75% vs. 43%. Higher rates of treatment-related discontinuation of any agent were observed in the combination group – 35% vs. 14% – though rates of adverse events leading to death were similar between the groups – 8% and 7%, respectively.

As in PAPILLON, rates of ILD/pneumonitis were “low,” said Dr. Cho, at approximately 3% in both treatment arms. However, he noted, rates of venous thromboembolism were higher with the combination, with grade ≥ 3 events occurring in 11% vs. 3.7% of patients on osimertinib.

Based on the findings, amivantamab plus lazertinib “represents a new standard of care in first-line EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC,” Dr. Cho said. “It has been a long way and we finally made it.”

Next up is MARIPOSA-2, which evaluated patients with EGFR-mutated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC who had progressed on or after osimertinib.

In this trial, 657 patients were randomly assigned to amivantamab plus lazertinib and chemotherapy (n = 263), amivantamab plus chemotherapy (n = 263), or chemotherapy alone (n = 131).

Given the increased risk for hematologic toxicities, the study protocol was adjusted in the triple therapy arm so that patients received lazertinib after completing carboplatin.

The findings, presented by study investigator Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

After a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the triple therapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 56% (HR,0.44) and amivantamab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for progression or death by 52% (HR, 0.48). Overall, the median PFS was 8.3 months in the triple combination arm, 6.3 months in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm, and 4.2 months in the chemotherapy arm.

This PFS benefit was observed across prespecified subgroups with both combination therapies. The combinations also reduced the risk for intracranial progression (HR, 0.58 in the triple therapy arm; HR, 0.55 in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm).

The current interim analysis did not show an overall survival benefit with either combination therapy vs. chemotherapy alone, although the survival curve hinted at a benefit in the amivantamab plus chemotherapy arm.

The median duration of response was 9.4 months for triple therapy, 6.9 months for the double combination, and 5.6 months for monotherapy.

Rates of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were notably higher in the combination groups – 92% of patients on triple therapy, 72% on double, and 48% on chemotherapy alone. But the treatment duration was longer in the combination groups and adverse events leading to death were low, as was discontinuation.

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy or plus lazertinib and chemotherapy are the “first regimens to demonstrate improved PFS vs. chemotherapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib,” concluded Dr. Passaro, from the European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, who presented the findings.

Dr. Passaro added that, given the consistent efficacy and more favorable safety profile, “we can say that amivantamab plus chemotherapy is the new standard of care for patients that are progressing after osimertinib,” although more follow-up is required to understand its “real impact” in the clinic.

Zofia Piotrowska, MD, who was not involved in either MARIPOSA trial, said both “are really important” in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC space.

The studies “addressed two different questions,” but both were “positive, and I think clinically significantly,” said Dr. Piotrowska, a lung cancer specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston.

However, Dr. Piotrowska noted that a core question for the community will be “how we find that balance between the clinical benefits [and] the toxicities.”

“There’s not going to be one easy answer” and treatment selection will have to be made on a “patient-by-patient basis,” she said.

PAPILLON, MARIPOSA, and MARIPOSA-2 were funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Girard declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann La Roche, Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and others. Dr. Cho declared relationships with Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Roche, BMS, Onegene Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and others. Dr. Passaro declared relationships with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Medscape, and eCancer. Dr. Besse declared institutional relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, EISAI, Genzyme Corporation, GSK, and others. Dr. Piotrowska declared relationships with numerous companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Takeda.

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

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

New evidence shows for the first time that the virus that causes COVID directly infects atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, producing a persistent inflammatory response.

The findings may not only explain the link between COVID and the increased risk of cardiovascular events but mark a starting point for new therapeutic approaches.

“Our study shows there is persistence of viral debris in the artery,” senior investigator Chiara Giannarelli, MD, associate professor of medicine and pathology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview. “There is an important inflammatory response. We can now look at ways to control this inflammation,” she said.

Dr. Giannarelli says COVID is more than a respiratory virus and that it can affect the whole body. “Our study shows a remarkable ability of the virus to hijack the immune system,” she points out. “Our findings may explain how that happens.”

Dr. Giannarelli says it’s important for doctors and patients to be aware of an increased cardiovascular risk after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and to pay extra attention to traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol.

“This study showing that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus directly infects coronary artery plaques, producing inflammatory substances, really joins the dots and helps our understanding on why we’re seeing so much heart disease in COVID patients,” Peter Hotez, MD, professor of molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

Asked whether this direct infection of vascular plaques was unique to SARS-CoV-2 or whether this may also occur with other viruses, both Dr. Giannarelli and Dr. Hotez said they believe this may be a specific COVID effect.

“I wouldn’t say it is likely that other viruses infect coronary arteries in this way, but I suppose it is possible,” Dr. Giannarelli said.

Dr. Hotez pointed out that other viruses can cause inflammation in the heart, such as myocarditis. “But I can’t think of another virus that stimulates the sequence of events in coronary artery inflammation like we’re seeing here.”

Dr. Giannarelli noted that influenza is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but there has been no evidence to date that it directly affects coronary arteries.

Dr. Hotez added that the increased risk of cardiovascular events with influenza has also been reported to be prolonged after the acute infection. “These new findings with SARS-CoV-2 could stimulate a redoubling of efforts to look at this possibility with influenza,” he suggested.
 

Heart disease after COVID

In a recent article published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research, Dr. Giannarelli and colleagues analyzed human autopsy tissue samples from coronary arterial walls of patients who had died from COVID in the early stages of the pandemic in New York.

They found an accumulation of viral RNA in atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries, which was particularly concentrated in lipid-rich macrophage foam cells present within the plaques.

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature,” the researchers report.

The virus preferentially replicates in foam cells, in comparison with other macrophages, they add, suggesting that these cells might act as a reservoir of viral debris in atherosclerotic plaque.

“We have shown that the virus is targeting lipid-rich macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. This is the first time this has been shown, and we think this is a very important finding,” Dr. Giannarelli said in an interview.

“We also found that the virus persists in these foam cells that could be responsible for long-term, low-grade inflammation in the vasculature that could contribute to the long-term cardiovascular manifestations in patients who have recovered from COVID,” she said.
 

Viral reservoirs

Macrophages residing in vascular tissue can undergo self-renewal and can remain in the tissue for many years, the investigators point out. They suggest that these macrophages may act as viral reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in atherosclerotic plaques.

Using an ex vivo model, the researchers also found that atherosclerotic tissue could be directly infected by the virus. And just as was seen in cultured macrophages and foam cells, infection of vascular tissue triggered an inflammatory response. That response induced the secretion of key proatherogenic cytokines, such as interleukin-6 and interleukin-1 beta, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

“Considering that plaque inflammation promotes disease progression and contributes to plaque rupture, our results provide a molecular basis for how infection of coronary lesions can contribute to the acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, such as myocardial infarction,” the researchers report.

Another interesting finding was a higher accumulation of viral RNA in the coronary vasculature of the three patients with acute ischemic cardiovascular manifestations, which they say adds to evidence that infection may increase cardiovascular risk.

Dr. Giannarelli points out that the patients in their study died in New York early in the pandemic, before vaccines were available. “They were unvaccinated and likely had little immunity against initial viral strains.”

Dr. Hotez says that when COVID-19 first emerged, many in the medical and scientific communities thought it would closely resemble the original SARS viral infection, which was primarily a respiratory pathogen.

“But it became pretty clear early on this virus was causing a lot of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease,” he says. “This study provides an insight into the mechanisms involved here.”
 

Affecting more than lungs

Dr. Hotez pointed out that a recent study reported a 5% increase in cardiovascular deaths during the years 2020-2022, compared with before the pandemic.

“Those peaks of cardiovascular deaths corresponded with specific waves of COVID – the first happening at the time of the initial wave with the original virus and second during the Delta wave. So, there’s no question that this virus is contributing to excess cardiovascular mortality, and this paper appears to explain the mechanism.”

Dr. Hotez pointed out that the new findings suggest the cardiovascular risk may be prolonged well after the acute infection resolves.

“In long COVID, a lot of people focus on the neurological effects – brain fog and depression. But cardiac insufficiency and other cardiovascular events can also be considered another element of long COVID,” he said.

Dr. Giannarelli says her group is now studying whether patients with long COVID have virus in their coronary arteries. She points out that the current studies were a result of a team effort between experts in cardiovascular disease and virology and infectious disease. “We need to collaborate more like this to understand better the impact of viral infection in patients and the clinical manifestations,” she said.

Dr. Hotez says he believes these new findings will have implications for the future.

“COVID hasn’t gone away. The numbers have been going up again steadily in the U.S. in the last few months. There are still a significant number of hospitalizations,” he said.

While it would be unwieldy to ask for a cardiology consult for every COVID patient, he acknowledged, “there is probably a subset of people – possibly those of older age and who have had a severe case of COVID – who we suspect are now going to be more prone to cardiovascular disease because of having COVID.

“We should be vigilant in looking for cardiovascular disease in these patients,” Dr. Hotez said, “and perhaps be a bit more aggressive about controlling their cardiovascular risk factors.”

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

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

Black Americans attempt to quit smoking more often than their White counterparts but are less likely to succeed, and they pay the health consequences.

This knowledge has driven Kevin Choi, MD, acting scientific director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities in Bethesda, Md., to dedicate his career to studying the patterns and disparities of smoking among these patients.

Dr. Choi wants primary care clinicians to know not just that they have the potential to educate patients on the harms of smoking – most patients already know smoking is unhealthy – but that aiding them will likely necessitate more assertive follow-up.

To do so, “we need to understand the bigger backdrop of racial and sociological stress experienced by the Black population, which stems from both interpersonal and structural racism,” Dr. Choi said.

Not only are Black smokers more likely to try to quit, but they also tend to smoke fewer cigarettes per day than other racial groups. Yet they experience higher rates of smoking-related mortality.
 

The reasons behind the attempts

Multiple factors play into Black smokers’ lower rates of successful quitting attempts than Asian, Hispanic, White, and Native American individuals.

One reason: An estimated 85% of Black smokers smoke highly addictive menthol cigarettes. According to Dr. Choi and other experts, the tobacco industry engages in targeted marketing of menthols by sponsoring community events in predominantly Black neighborhoods and colleges with historically Black populations and by using Black culture in advertising.

“The built environment really drives a change in behavior, and we have seen that chronically in the African American population being overly targeted and now being overly addicted to nicotine,” said Daniel Kortsch, MD, a family medicine physician and chair of the Tobacco Cessation Workgroup at Denver Health.

Menthol cigarettes are more addictive than traditional cigarettes, in part because they provide a less harsh feeling in the respiratory system, owing to anti-tussive, anti-irritant, and cooling properties that act as a cough suppressant and mask irritation and pain.

“You do not feel like you’re smoking that much or that it’s dangerous, and that’s exactly the reason why it’s harder to quit,” said Julia Adamian, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and clinical innovation at NYU Langone Tisch Hospital.

In addition, menthol cigarettes interact with the body in complex ways that make quitting harder, according to a study published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research. Menthol increases the amount of nicotine that the body absorbs and thus increases the risk of dependence on the drug.

According to Dr. Choi, rates of cigar and cigarillo use are higher among Black Americans, compared with other races, and these products are often left out of cessation programs. Smokers, regardless of race, may have a misguided belief that cigars and cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes.

Research published in 2021 found that Black cigar smokers who were interested in cessation had not been asked by their health care provider if they smoked cigars, and those who were asked reported a lack of support for cessation.

Primary care providers should work to remove any misconceptions a patient has regarding the safety of cigarillos and cigars, Dr. Choi said.

These smokers are also at a disadvantage regarding cessation success because of the neighborhoods they may live in, according to Dr. Choi. Black Americans are more likely to earn less and to live in neighborhoods with lower housing values than other racial groups. Areas with more low-income households tend to have a higher density of tobacco outlets.

“If you’re trying to quit smoking, but you walk by three, four, or five gas stations, convenience stores, and other tobacco outlets with signs that advertise sales, it’s not going to make quitting easy,” Dr. Choi said.
 

Tailoring treatment to Black smokers

Considering the unique challenges Black patients may face in quitting, clinicians should provide more follow-up and consistent support, according to Dr. Adamian. The higher risk of tobacco-related death among Black smokers means clinicians need to be more aggressive in recommending every treatment possible if one treatment fails.

Pharmacotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, and counseling are evidence-based options to help patients stop smoking.

Dr. Kortsch considers pharmacotherapy to be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for nicotine addiction. However, Black Americans are less likely than White smokers to try smoking cessation medications, and they express more suspicion about efficacy and potential addiction to the tools.

“African American populations simply do not use pharmacotherapy to the extent that other populations do to help them quit smoking; this is a problem,” Dr. Kortsch said.

Dr. Kortsch recommends the use of varenicline for all patients with nicotine addiction. He recommends varenicline in combination with tobacco replacement products such as lozenges, patches, gums, or inhalers if the patient is a heavy smoker as opposed to someone who has a few cigarettes on the weekends.

If a patient has anxiety or depression, Dr. Adamian advises initiating a pharmacologic treatment such as bupropion or varenicline more quickly, because mood disorders can hinder cessation.

Cessation counseling is another option, but clinicians may need to more thoroughly explain what it entails. According to Dr. Choi, Black patients may be more reluctant to try cessation counseling because of the negative stigma associated with the term “counseling.” But this treatment is not therapy – it involves identifying and coming up with strategies to manage smoking triggers and providing encouragement. Clinicians can eliminate any confusion patients may have between psychological therapy and cessation counseling.

“ ‘Counseling’ tends to have a somewhat negative connotation among racial minority populations, like you go to counseling because you’re crazy,” Dr. Choi said. “That needs to change.”

Clinicians also must clarify how each cessation tool works. For example, some patients may not realize that the nicotine patch isn’t an instant fix for a craving and that hours may pass before the user feels its effects, according to Dr. Choi.
 

Move past the ‘advise’ stage

While recommending to patients various forms of cessation, clinicians should be mindful of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for providers who treat patients who smoke. Those guidelines include a five-step process: Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange.

Dr. Choi said most providers stop at the “Advise” stage. In steps one and two, providers ask patients whether they smoke, then advise them to quit. Stage three involves asking whether or not a patient is ready to quit and where they are in their journey.

Clinicians shouldn’t give up when patients say they do not currently plan to quit. Instead, they can use the conversation to create an ongoing dialogue about the patient’s readiness to quit in future visits. Follow-up phone calls or text messages should be made 2-4 weeks after a patient makes an attempt to quit and at the same interval thereafter, Dr. Adamian advised.

“It takes a concerted effort on behalf of all people to be successful, and it is really uncommon for someone to be successful with only one attempt,” Dr. Kortsch said.

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers identified three key factors that influence a Black smoker’s ability to stop smoking in early attempts. These factors have been shown to increase the chances of long-term cessation: fewer cigarettes per day, nonuse of other tobacco products, and lower levels of cotinine (a nicotine metabolite) at baseline.

“Using these predictors of early treatment response could allow providers to anticipate which smokers may benefit from a minimal, low-cost intervention and who may benefit from more intensive treatment,” said Eleanor Leavens, PhD, assistant professor in the department of population health at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, who led the study.

Dr. Leavens’ research also confirmed that early abstinence predicts long-term cessation success. Smokers who were able to forgo cigarettes within 2 weeks of their quit date were almost four times more likely to remain abstinent over the long term.

A quick phone call or message from the clinician or a staff member can help patients achieve early progress, enable changes in approach to quitting, and build a relationship with the patient, Dr. Adamian said.

“Have more empathy for what Black patients are going through,” Dr. Choi said. “Continue to cheer them on and to be a supporter of their smoking cessation journey.”

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

Black Americans attempt to quit smoking more often than their White counterparts but are less likely to succeed, and they pay the health consequences.

This knowledge has driven Kevin Choi, MD, acting scientific director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities in Bethesda, Md., to dedicate his career to studying the patterns and disparities of smoking among these patients.

Dr. Choi wants primary care clinicians to know not just that they have the potential to educate patients on the harms of smoking – most patients already know smoking is unhealthy – but that aiding them will likely necessitate more assertive follow-up.

To do so, “we need to understand the bigger backdrop of racial and sociological stress experienced by the Black population, which stems from both interpersonal and structural racism,” Dr. Choi said.

Not only are Black smokers more likely to try to quit, but they also tend to smoke fewer cigarettes per day than other racial groups. Yet they experience higher rates of smoking-related mortality.
 

The reasons behind the attempts

Multiple factors play into Black smokers’ lower rates of successful quitting attempts than Asian, Hispanic, White, and Native American individuals.

One reason: An estimated 85% of Black smokers smoke highly addictive menthol cigarettes. According to Dr. Choi and other experts, the tobacco industry engages in targeted marketing of menthols by sponsoring community events in predominantly Black neighborhoods and colleges with historically Black populations and by using Black culture in advertising.

“The built environment really drives a change in behavior, and we have seen that chronically in the African American population being overly targeted and now being overly addicted to nicotine,” said Daniel Kortsch, MD, a family medicine physician and chair of the Tobacco Cessation Workgroup at Denver Health.

Menthol cigarettes are more addictive than traditional cigarettes, in part because they provide a less harsh feeling in the respiratory system, owing to anti-tussive, anti-irritant, and cooling properties that act as a cough suppressant and mask irritation and pain.

“You do not feel like you’re smoking that much or that it’s dangerous, and that’s exactly the reason why it’s harder to quit,” said Julia Adamian, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and clinical innovation at NYU Langone Tisch Hospital.

In addition, menthol cigarettes interact with the body in complex ways that make quitting harder, according to a study published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research. Menthol increases the amount of nicotine that the body absorbs and thus increases the risk of dependence on the drug.

According to Dr. Choi, rates of cigar and cigarillo use are higher among Black Americans, compared with other races, and these products are often left out of cessation programs. Smokers, regardless of race, may have a misguided belief that cigars and cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes.

Research published in 2021 found that Black cigar smokers who were interested in cessation had not been asked by their health care provider if they smoked cigars, and those who were asked reported a lack of support for cessation.

Primary care providers should work to remove any misconceptions a patient has regarding the safety of cigarillos and cigars, Dr. Choi said.

These smokers are also at a disadvantage regarding cessation success because of the neighborhoods they may live in, according to Dr. Choi. Black Americans are more likely to earn less and to live in neighborhoods with lower housing values than other racial groups. Areas with more low-income households tend to have a higher density of tobacco outlets.

“If you’re trying to quit smoking, but you walk by three, four, or five gas stations, convenience stores, and other tobacco outlets with signs that advertise sales, it’s not going to make quitting easy,” Dr. Choi said.
 

Tailoring treatment to Black smokers

Considering the unique challenges Black patients may face in quitting, clinicians should provide more follow-up and consistent support, according to Dr. Adamian. The higher risk of tobacco-related death among Black smokers means clinicians need to be more aggressive in recommending every treatment possible if one treatment fails.

Pharmacotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, and counseling are evidence-based options to help patients stop smoking.

Dr. Kortsch considers pharmacotherapy to be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for nicotine addiction. However, Black Americans are less likely than White smokers to try smoking cessation medications, and they express more suspicion about efficacy and potential addiction to the tools.

“African American populations simply do not use pharmacotherapy to the extent that other populations do to help them quit smoking; this is a problem,” Dr. Kortsch said.

Dr. Kortsch recommends the use of varenicline for all patients with nicotine addiction. He recommends varenicline in combination with tobacco replacement products such as lozenges, patches, gums, or inhalers if the patient is a heavy smoker as opposed to someone who has a few cigarettes on the weekends.

If a patient has anxiety or depression, Dr. Adamian advises initiating a pharmacologic treatment such as bupropion or varenicline more quickly, because mood disorders can hinder cessation.

Cessation counseling is another option, but clinicians may need to more thoroughly explain what it entails. According to Dr. Choi, Black patients may be more reluctant to try cessation counseling because of the negative stigma associated with the term “counseling.” But this treatment is not therapy – it involves identifying and coming up with strategies to manage smoking triggers and providing encouragement. Clinicians can eliminate any confusion patients may have between psychological therapy and cessation counseling.

“ ‘Counseling’ tends to have a somewhat negative connotation among racial minority populations, like you go to counseling because you’re crazy,” Dr. Choi said. “That needs to change.”

Clinicians also must clarify how each cessation tool works. For example, some patients may not realize that the nicotine patch isn’t an instant fix for a craving and that hours may pass before the user feels its effects, according to Dr. Choi.
 

Move past the ‘advise’ stage

While recommending to patients various forms of cessation, clinicians should be mindful of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for providers who treat patients who smoke. Those guidelines include a five-step process: Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange.

Dr. Choi said most providers stop at the “Advise” stage. In steps one and two, providers ask patients whether they smoke, then advise them to quit. Stage three involves asking whether or not a patient is ready to quit and where they are in their journey.

Clinicians shouldn’t give up when patients say they do not currently plan to quit. Instead, they can use the conversation to create an ongoing dialogue about the patient’s readiness to quit in future visits. Follow-up phone calls or text messages should be made 2-4 weeks after a patient makes an attempt to quit and at the same interval thereafter, Dr. Adamian advised.

“It takes a concerted effort on behalf of all people to be successful, and it is really uncommon for someone to be successful with only one attempt,” Dr. Kortsch said.

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers identified three key factors that influence a Black smoker’s ability to stop smoking in early attempts. These factors have been shown to increase the chances of long-term cessation: fewer cigarettes per day, nonuse of other tobacco products, and lower levels of cotinine (a nicotine metabolite) at baseline.

“Using these predictors of early treatment response could allow providers to anticipate which smokers may benefit from a minimal, low-cost intervention and who may benefit from more intensive treatment,” said Eleanor Leavens, PhD, assistant professor in the department of population health at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, who led the study.

Dr. Leavens’ research also confirmed that early abstinence predicts long-term cessation success. Smokers who were able to forgo cigarettes within 2 weeks of their quit date were almost four times more likely to remain abstinent over the long term.

A quick phone call or message from the clinician or a staff member can help patients achieve early progress, enable changes in approach to quitting, and build a relationship with the patient, Dr. Adamian said.

“Have more empathy for what Black patients are going through,” Dr. Choi said. “Continue to cheer them on and to be a supporter of their smoking cessation journey.”

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

Black Americans attempt to quit smoking more often than their White counterparts but are less likely to succeed, and they pay the health consequences.

This knowledge has driven Kevin Choi, MD, acting scientific director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities in Bethesda, Md., to dedicate his career to studying the patterns and disparities of smoking among these patients.

Dr. Choi wants primary care clinicians to know not just that they have the potential to educate patients on the harms of smoking – most patients already know smoking is unhealthy – but that aiding them will likely necessitate more assertive follow-up.

To do so, “we need to understand the bigger backdrop of racial and sociological stress experienced by the Black population, which stems from both interpersonal and structural racism,” Dr. Choi said.

Not only are Black smokers more likely to try to quit, but they also tend to smoke fewer cigarettes per day than other racial groups. Yet they experience higher rates of smoking-related mortality.
 

The reasons behind the attempts

Multiple factors play into Black smokers’ lower rates of successful quitting attempts than Asian, Hispanic, White, and Native American individuals.

One reason: An estimated 85% of Black smokers smoke highly addictive menthol cigarettes. According to Dr. Choi and other experts, the tobacco industry engages in targeted marketing of menthols by sponsoring community events in predominantly Black neighborhoods and colleges with historically Black populations and by using Black culture in advertising.

“The built environment really drives a change in behavior, and we have seen that chronically in the African American population being overly targeted and now being overly addicted to nicotine,” said Daniel Kortsch, MD, a family medicine physician and chair of the Tobacco Cessation Workgroup at Denver Health.

Menthol cigarettes are more addictive than traditional cigarettes, in part because they provide a less harsh feeling in the respiratory system, owing to anti-tussive, anti-irritant, and cooling properties that act as a cough suppressant and mask irritation and pain.

“You do not feel like you’re smoking that much or that it’s dangerous, and that’s exactly the reason why it’s harder to quit,” said Julia Adamian, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and clinical innovation at NYU Langone Tisch Hospital.

In addition, menthol cigarettes interact with the body in complex ways that make quitting harder, according to a study published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research. Menthol increases the amount of nicotine that the body absorbs and thus increases the risk of dependence on the drug.

According to Dr. Choi, rates of cigar and cigarillo use are higher among Black Americans, compared with other races, and these products are often left out of cessation programs. Smokers, regardless of race, may have a misguided belief that cigars and cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes.

Research published in 2021 found that Black cigar smokers who were interested in cessation had not been asked by their health care provider if they smoked cigars, and those who were asked reported a lack of support for cessation.

Primary care providers should work to remove any misconceptions a patient has regarding the safety of cigarillos and cigars, Dr. Choi said.

These smokers are also at a disadvantage regarding cessation success because of the neighborhoods they may live in, according to Dr. Choi. Black Americans are more likely to earn less and to live in neighborhoods with lower housing values than other racial groups. Areas with more low-income households tend to have a higher density of tobacco outlets.

“If you’re trying to quit smoking, but you walk by three, four, or five gas stations, convenience stores, and other tobacco outlets with signs that advertise sales, it’s not going to make quitting easy,” Dr. Choi said.
 

Tailoring treatment to Black smokers

Considering the unique challenges Black patients may face in quitting, clinicians should provide more follow-up and consistent support, according to Dr. Adamian. The higher risk of tobacco-related death among Black smokers means clinicians need to be more aggressive in recommending every treatment possible if one treatment fails.

Pharmacotherapy, nicotine replacement therapy, and counseling are evidence-based options to help patients stop smoking.

Dr. Kortsch considers pharmacotherapy to be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for nicotine addiction. However, Black Americans are less likely than White smokers to try smoking cessation medications, and they express more suspicion about efficacy and potential addiction to the tools.

“African American populations simply do not use pharmacotherapy to the extent that other populations do to help them quit smoking; this is a problem,” Dr. Kortsch said.

Dr. Kortsch recommends the use of varenicline for all patients with nicotine addiction. He recommends varenicline in combination with tobacco replacement products such as lozenges, patches, gums, or inhalers if the patient is a heavy smoker as opposed to someone who has a few cigarettes on the weekends.

If a patient has anxiety or depression, Dr. Adamian advises initiating a pharmacologic treatment such as bupropion or varenicline more quickly, because mood disorders can hinder cessation.

Cessation counseling is another option, but clinicians may need to more thoroughly explain what it entails. According to Dr. Choi, Black patients may be more reluctant to try cessation counseling because of the negative stigma associated with the term “counseling.” But this treatment is not therapy – it involves identifying and coming up with strategies to manage smoking triggers and providing encouragement. Clinicians can eliminate any confusion patients may have between psychological therapy and cessation counseling.

“ ‘Counseling’ tends to have a somewhat negative connotation among racial minority populations, like you go to counseling because you’re crazy,” Dr. Choi said. “That needs to change.”

Clinicians also must clarify how each cessation tool works. For example, some patients may not realize that the nicotine patch isn’t an instant fix for a craving and that hours may pass before the user feels its effects, according to Dr. Choi.
 

Move past the ‘advise’ stage

While recommending to patients various forms of cessation, clinicians should be mindful of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for providers who treat patients who smoke. Those guidelines include a five-step process: Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange.

Dr. Choi said most providers stop at the “Advise” stage. In steps one and two, providers ask patients whether they smoke, then advise them to quit. Stage three involves asking whether or not a patient is ready to quit and where they are in their journey.

Clinicians shouldn’t give up when patients say they do not currently plan to quit. Instead, they can use the conversation to create an ongoing dialogue about the patient’s readiness to quit in future visits. Follow-up phone calls or text messages should be made 2-4 weeks after a patient makes an attempt to quit and at the same interval thereafter, Dr. Adamian advised.

“It takes a concerted effort on behalf of all people to be successful, and it is really uncommon for someone to be successful with only one attempt,” Dr. Kortsch said.

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers identified three key factors that influence a Black smoker’s ability to stop smoking in early attempts. These factors have been shown to increase the chances of long-term cessation: fewer cigarettes per day, nonuse of other tobacco products, and lower levels of cotinine (a nicotine metabolite) at baseline.

“Using these predictors of early treatment response could allow providers to anticipate which smokers may benefit from a minimal, low-cost intervention and who may benefit from more intensive treatment,” said Eleanor Leavens, PhD, assistant professor in the department of population health at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, who led the study.

Dr. Leavens’ research also confirmed that early abstinence predicts long-term cessation success. Smokers who were able to forgo cigarettes within 2 weeks of their quit date were almost four times more likely to remain abstinent over the long term.

A quick phone call or message from the clinician or a staff member can help patients achieve early progress, enable changes in approach to quitting, and build a relationship with the patient, Dr. Adamian said.

“Have more empathy for what Black patients are going through,” Dr. Choi said. “Continue to cheer them on and to be a supporter of their smoking cessation journey.”

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

Extracorporeal membrane oxygen support appears to be beneficial in patients with advanced interstitial lung disease (ILD), according to a new meta-analysis. Specifically, among patients undergoing ECMO as a bridge to transplant, mortality was lower with venoarterial (VA) ECMO than with venovenous (VV) ECMO, although the confidence in the finding was low.

ECMO has been used increasingly in ILD patients over the past 10-15 years for acute decompensation as well as a bridge to lung transplant, according to Prasanth Balasubramanian, MD, but clinical evidence for its use is limited to case series or short-term retrospective studies. “We don’t have robust evidence on whether it really helps with the outcome, and which mode is better, so that’s why we decided to do a study on this,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, who is a fellow in pulmonary critical care at Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville, Fla.). He presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

The results were encouraging, according to the study’s lead author Pramod Guru, MD. “I think what we take from this analysis is that ECMO should not be considered as a contraindication for people you are considering for lung transplant. If we have this population of people who are very sick, but we have the opportunity to solve them with VA ECMO and then give the transplantation possibly, that may be the way,” said Dr. Guru, who is a critical care specialist at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla. He acknowledged that more work needs to be done to determine whether VA or VV is best in specific patient populations.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies with a total of 1,341 patients, who were a mean age of 55.89 years and 61.08% of whom were male. Most procedures (75.3%) were VV. The overall mortality was 52.6%, including 59.7% for VV ECMO and 34.2% for VA ECMO. The survival difference did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 0.48; P = .11). There was also no significant difference in survival between patients who underwent ECMO and those who did not undergo ECMO (OR, 0.48; P = .43).

The researchers also analyzed 13 studies with 1,002 patients that looked at ECMO as a bridge to transplant (mean age, 52.1; 52.2% male; 49.3% VV, 31.1% VA, 32.4% cardiopulmonary bypass). Mortality was lower in the VA group than in the VV group (odds ratio, 0.62; P = .04).

“VA ECMO is generally for sicker patients, so it’s odd that the patients who are on the more aggressive support had lower mortality. But it’s good, it says it works,” said Chris Carroll, MD, an intensivist at the University of Florida, Jacksonville, who was asked to comment on the study.

The finding may also be an artifact of bias in the retrospective data, according to Joshua Diamond, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. He noted age, physical function, and illness severity, among other factors can play a role in decision-making. “I have a feeling that what you’re seeing is a very carefully selected patient population as opposed to a true mortality benefit with VA versus VV ECMO,” said Dr. Diamond, who is associate medical director of the Penn Lung Transplant Program in Philadelphia.

Another weakness of the study is that ECMO techniques and devices have changed over time, making some of the older data less relevant to current practice. Overall Dr. Diamond described the study as interesting, but “I’d like to see a bit more granularity of data to figure out who makes or doesn’t make a good candidate,” said Dr. Diamond.

Patients with ILD undergoing ECMO as a bridge to transplant had a higher 1-year posttransplant mortality than patients with other causes for transplant (OR, 1.78; P<.01). However, this finding relied on two retrospective studies using the UNOS database at different time points (2001-2012 and 2015-2020), leading to potential confounders and risk of bias.

Dr. Balasubramanian recognized the limitations of the analysis. “We do think that further prospective studies comparing various modalities would be essential, although it would be challenging,” he said.

Nevertheless, Dr. Guru said that his own center is changing its patient selection criteria for ECMO and will begin to collect prospective data: “I would say that in 12 months we’ll have our own data to support what we are doing.”

The study can also inform patients and family who are trying to make a potential end-of-life decision about pursuing aggressive ECMO therapy. “This study says that if you choose to pursue that more aggressive therapy, you may still have a good outcome. A patient might say, ‘Why am I going to go through all this? Is it just prolonging my death, or is there a chance of saving my life? I think what this study shows is that it does have potential of saving their life,” said Dr. Carroll.

Dr. Balasubramanian, Dr. Guru, and Dr. Carroll have no relevant financial disclosures.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygen support appears to be beneficial in patients with advanced interstitial lung disease (ILD), according to a new meta-analysis. Specifically, among patients undergoing ECMO as a bridge to transplant, mortality was lower with venoarterial (VA) ECMO than with venovenous (VV) ECMO, although the confidence in the finding was low.

ECMO has been used increasingly in ILD patients over the past 10-15 years for acute decompensation as well as a bridge to lung transplant, according to Prasanth Balasubramanian, MD, but clinical evidence for its use is limited to case series or short-term retrospective studies. “We don’t have robust evidence on whether it really helps with the outcome, and which mode is better, so that’s why we decided to do a study on this,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, who is a fellow in pulmonary critical care at Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville, Fla.). He presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

The results were encouraging, according to the study’s lead author Pramod Guru, MD. “I think what we take from this analysis is that ECMO should not be considered as a contraindication for people you are considering for lung transplant. If we have this population of people who are very sick, but we have the opportunity to solve them with VA ECMO and then give the transplantation possibly, that may be the way,” said Dr. Guru, who is a critical care specialist at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla. He acknowledged that more work needs to be done to determine whether VA or VV is best in specific patient populations.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies with a total of 1,341 patients, who were a mean age of 55.89 years and 61.08% of whom were male. Most procedures (75.3%) were VV. The overall mortality was 52.6%, including 59.7% for VV ECMO and 34.2% for VA ECMO. The survival difference did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 0.48; P = .11). There was also no significant difference in survival between patients who underwent ECMO and those who did not undergo ECMO (OR, 0.48; P = .43).

The researchers also analyzed 13 studies with 1,002 patients that looked at ECMO as a bridge to transplant (mean age, 52.1; 52.2% male; 49.3% VV, 31.1% VA, 32.4% cardiopulmonary bypass). Mortality was lower in the VA group than in the VV group (odds ratio, 0.62; P = .04).

“VA ECMO is generally for sicker patients, so it’s odd that the patients who are on the more aggressive support had lower mortality. But it’s good, it says it works,” said Chris Carroll, MD, an intensivist at the University of Florida, Jacksonville, who was asked to comment on the study.

The finding may also be an artifact of bias in the retrospective data, according to Joshua Diamond, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. He noted age, physical function, and illness severity, among other factors can play a role in decision-making. “I have a feeling that what you’re seeing is a very carefully selected patient population as opposed to a true mortality benefit with VA versus VV ECMO,” said Dr. Diamond, who is associate medical director of the Penn Lung Transplant Program in Philadelphia.

Another weakness of the study is that ECMO techniques and devices have changed over time, making some of the older data less relevant to current practice. Overall Dr. Diamond described the study as interesting, but “I’d like to see a bit more granularity of data to figure out who makes or doesn’t make a good candidate,” said Dr. Diamond.

Patients with ILD undergoing ECMO as a bridge to transplant had a higher 1-year posttransplant mortality than patients with other causes for transplant (OR, 1.78; P<.01). However, this finding relied on two retrospective studies using the UNOS database at different time points (2001-2012 and 2015-2020), leading to potential confounders and risk of bias.

Dr. Balasubramanian recognized the limitations of the analysis. “We do think that further prospective studies comparing various modalities would be essential, although it would be challenging,” he said.

Nevertheless, Dr. Guru said that his own center is changing its patient selection criteria for ECMO and will begin to collect prospective data: “I would say that in 12 months we’ll have our own data to support what we are doing.”

The study can also inform patients and family who are trying to make a potential end-of-life decision about pursuing aggressive ECMO therapy. “This study says that if you choose to pursue that more aggressive therapy, you may still have a good outcome. A patient might say, ‘Why am I going to go through all this? Is it just prolonging my death, or is there a chance of saving my life? I think what this study shows is that it does have potential of saving their life,” said Dr. Carroll.

Dr. Balasubramanian, Dr. Guru, and Dr. Carroll have no relevant financial disclosures.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygen support appears to be beneficial in patients with advanced interstitial lung disease (ILD), according to a new meta-analysis. Specifically, among patients undergoing ECMO as a bridge to transplant, mortality was lower with venoarterial (VA) ECMO than with venovenous (VV) ECMO, although the confidence in the finding was low.

ECMO has been used increasingly in ILD patients over the past 10-15 years for acute decompensation as well as a bridge to lung transplant, according to Prasanth Balasubramanian, MD, but clinical evidence for its use is limited to case series or short-term retrospective studies. “We don’t have robust evidence on whether it really helps with the outcome, and which mode is better, so that’s why we decided to do a study on this,” said Dr. Balasubramanian, who is a fellow in pulmonary critical care at Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville, Fla.). He presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

The results were encouraging, according to the study’s lead author Pramod Guru, MD. “I think what we take from this analysis is that ECMO should not be considered as a contraindication for people you are considering for lung transplant. If we have this population of people who are very sick, but we have the opportunity to solve them with VA ECMO and then give the transplantation possibly, that may be the way,” said Dr. Guru, who is a critical care specialist at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla. He acknowledged that more work needs to be done to determine whether VA or VV is best in specific patient populations.

The meta-analysis included 18 studies with a total of 1,341 patients, who were a mean age of 55.89 years and 61.08% of whom were male. Most procedures (75.3%) were VV. The overall mortality was 52.6%, including 59.7% for VV ECMO and 34.2% for VA ECMO. The survival difference did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 0.48; P = .11). There was also no significant difference in survival between patients who underwent ECMO and those who did not undergo ECMO (OR, 0.48; P = .43).

The researchers also analyzed 13 studies with 1,002 patients that looked at ECMO as a bridge to transplant (mean age, 52.1; 52.2% male; 49.3% VV, 31.1% VA, 32.4% cardiopulmonary bypass). Mortality was lower in the VA group than in the VV group (odds ratio, 0.62; P = .04).

“VA ECMO is generally for sicker patients, so it’s odd that the patients who are on the more aggressive support had lower mortality. But it’s good, it says it works,” said Chris Carroll, MD, an intensivist at the University of Florida, Jacksonville, who was asked to comment on the study.

The finding may also be an artifact of bias in the retrospective data, according to Joshua Diamond, MD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. He noted age, physical function, and illness severity, among other factors can play a role in decision-making. “I have a feeling that what you’re seeing is a very carefully selected patient population as opposed to a true mortality benefit with VA versus VV ECMO,” said Dr. Diamond, who is associate medical director of the Penn Lung Transplant Program in Philadelphia.

Another weakness of the study is that ECMO techniques and devices have changed over time, making some of the older data less relevant to current practice. Overall Dr. Diamond described the study as interesting, but “I’d like to see a bit more granularity of data to figure out who makes or doesn’t make a good candidate,” said Dr. Diamond.

Patients with ILD undergoing ECMO as a bridge to transplant had a higher 1-year posttransplant mortality than patients with other causes for transplant (OR, 1.78; P<.01). However, this finding relied on two retrospective studies using the UNOS database at different time points (2001-2012 and 2015-2020), leading to potential confounders and risk of bias.

Dr. Balasubramanian recognized the limitations of the analysis. “We do think that further prospective studies comparing various modalities would be essential, although it would be challenging,” he said.

Nevertheless, Dr. Guru said that his own center is changing its patient selection criteria for ECMO and will begin to collect prospective data: “I would say that in 12 months we’ll have our own data to support what we are doing.”

The study can also inform patients and family who are trying to make a potential end-of-life decision about pursuing aggressive ECMO therapy. “This study says that if you choose to pursue that more aggressive therapy, you may still have a good outcome. A patient might say, ‘Why am I going to go through all this? Is it just prolonging my death, or is there a chance of saving my life? I think what this study shows is that it does have potential of saving their life,” said Dr. Carroll.

Dr. Balasubramanian, Dr. Guru, and Dr. Carroll have no relevant financial disclosures.

Hospitalized patients with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were a younger average age than those hospitalized with asthma alone, according to a new analysis of data from HCA Healthcare.

Not much work has been done on the overlap between the two conditions, both of which are believed to be driven by the action of both eosinophils and helper T cells, according to Linda Pham, DO, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“I have a colleague who is interested in GI and he’s really interested in EOE. We thought it would be nice to look at those populations of patients to see if there’s a correlation between them aside from just the atopic disease,” said Dr. Pham, who is an internal medicine resident at Riverside (Calif.) Community Hospital.

The findings underscore the need for assessing individual patient risk. “Having another concomitant disease like EoE, or maybe like atopic dermatitis, might cause you to have more severe [asthma] exacerbations causing you to go into the hospital more. I think if patients have more of these diseases, doctors can be more cognizant that they need to really be on top of treatment and make sure that [their patients] are aware of themselves so that if their symptoms exacerbate, they can go to the hospital and seek care,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was a retrospective analysis of 3,678,812 patients with asthma and 5,823 patients with both EoE and asthma. The data was drawn from 185 HCA hospitals, with records between 2016 and 2021.

The incidence of both asthma and asthma with EoE remained stable between 2016 and 2021. Dr. Pham pointed out that there are good methods to diagnose both conditions, which suggests that existing treatments are effective enough to be limiting the need for emergency treatment, according to Dr. Pham.

Among patients hospitalized with asthma alone, 72.55% were female, while 27.45% were male (P < .001). The numbers were much more evenly split among those with asthma and EoE, at 51.78% and 48.22%, respectively. The differing gender statistics aren’t easy to explain. “It’s not quite clear whether it’s because they just have more severe symptoms, or if it is other factors causing women to seek care more than their male counterparts. It could be personal biases, or it could be the asthma itself that is more severe in women,” said Dr. Pham.

When they broke down the analysis by sex, the researchers found that male EoE patients without asthma were a mean value of 5.517 years older than male EoE patients with asthma, and the mean difference was 5.480 years in female patients (P < .001 for both).

Although the direct cause of earlier hospitalization among patients with concomitant EoE and asthma is unclear, Dr. Pham speculated that the combination of atopic diseases may be leading to a stronger inflammatory response.

It remains to be seen if a similar relationship occurs with other atopic diseases, and future research could examine other factors. “I think it’d be good to look at not just age and gender, but BMI and occupation, things like that,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was of particular interest to Michelle Robertson, MD, who was in the audience. She is the director for clinical services at the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence at the New Jersey War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center. “We see a significant number of [veterans] who have been diagnosed with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis, and our thinking is that that is likely related to some of the military exposures: In particular, [what the] deployed veterans encountered in the Gulf War, [such as] the smoke from burn pits, sand and dust storms, and smoke from oil well fires. Our thinking is that the particulate matter, the PM 2.5, the very, very tiny particles, may be either sensitizing the lung area and/or esophagus and predisposing them to having those symptoms when they return home,” said Dr. Robertson, in an interview.

Particles in this size range may be able to bypass the protected areas of the nose and the lungs to reach the alveoli, where they could potentially interfere with the transfer of air between the lungs and the rest of the body, which could in turn lead to a variety of inflammatory conditions, according to Dr. Robertson.

She noted that particle exposure varies with a soldier’s wartime occupation, with higher exposures among mechanics and burn pit managers, for example. However, the highest levels of exposure do not predict later illness, which is a natural prompt for future research. “The second part of this whole pathophysiology is susceptibility. Is there something about those people that do get sick that makes them more susceptible than folks that don’t, even though they both have the same jobs?”

Dr. Pham and Dr. Robertson have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Hospitalized patients with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were a younger average age than those hospitalized with asthma alone, according to a new analysis of data from HCA Healthcare.

Not much work has been done on the overlap between the two conditions, both of which are believed to be driven by the action of both eosinophils and helper T cells, according to Linda Pham, DO, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“I have a colleague who is interested in GI and he’s really interested in EOE. We thought it would be nice to look at those populations of patients to see if there’s a correlation between them aside from just the atopic disease,” said Dr. Pham, who is an internal medicine resident at Riverside (Calif.) Community Hospital.

The findings underscore the need for assessing individual patient risk. “Having another concomitant disease like EoE, or maybe like atopic dermatitis, might cause you to have more severe [asthma] exacerbations causing you to go into the hospital more. I think if patients have more of these diseases, doctors can be more cognizant that they need to really be on top of treatment and make sure that [their patients] are aware of themselves so that if their symptoms exacerbate, they can go to the hospital and seek care,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was a retrospective analysis of 3,678,812 patients with asthma and 5,823 patients with both EoE and asthma. The data was drawn from 185 HCA hospitals, with records between 2016 and 2021.

The incidence of both asthma and asthma with EoE remained stable between 2016 and 2021. Dr. Pham pointed out that there are good methods to diagnose both conditions, which suggests that existing treatments are effective enough to be limiting the need for emergency treatment, according to Dr. Pham.

Among patients hospitalized with asthma alone, 72.55% were female, while 27.45% were male (P < .001). The numbers were much more evenly split among those with asthma and EoE, at 51.78% and 48.22%, respectively. The differing gender statistics aren’t easy to explain. “It’s not quite clear whether it’s because they just have more severe symptoms, or if it is other factors causing women to seek care more than their male counterparts. It could be personal biases, or it could be the asthma itself that is more severe in women,” said Dr. Pham.

When they broke down the analysis by sex, the researchers found that male EoE patients without asthma were a mean value of 5.517 years older than male EoE patients with asthma, and the mean difference was 5.480 years in female patients (P < .001 for both).

Although the direct cause of earlier hospitalization among patients with concomitant EoE and asthma is unclear, Dr. Pham speculated that the combination of atopic diseases may be leading to a stronger inflammatory response.

It remains to be seen if a similar relationship occurs with other atopic diseases, and future research could examine other factors. “I think it’d be good to look at not just age and gender, but BMI and occupation, things like that,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was of particular interest to Michelle Robertson, MD, who was in the audience. She is the director for clinical services at the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence at the New Jersey War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center. “We see a significant number of [veterans] who have been diagnosed with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis, and our thinking is that that is likely related to some of the military exposures: In particular, [what the] deployed veterans encountered in the Gulf War, [such as] the smoke from burn pits, sand and dust storms, and smoke from oil well fires. Our thinking is that the particulate matter, the PM 2.5, the very, very tiny particles, may be either sensitizing the lung area and/or esophagus and predisposing them to having those symptoms when they return home,” said Dr. Robertson, in an interview.

Particles in this size range may be able to bypass the protected areas of the nose and the lungs to reach the alveoli, where they could potentially interfere with the transfer of air between the lungs and the rest of the body, which could in turn lead to a variety of inflammatory conditions, according to Dr. Robertson.

She noted that particle exposure varies with a soldier’s wartime occupation, with higher exposures among mechanics and burn pit managers, for example. However, the highest levels of exposure do not predict later illness, which is a natural prompt for future research. “The second part of this whole pathophysiology is susceptibility. Is there something about those people that do get sick that makes them more susceptible than folks that don’t, even though they both have the same jobs?”

Dr. Pham and Dr. Robertson have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Hospitalized patients with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were a younger average age than those hospitalized with asthma alone, according to a new analysis of data from HCA Healthcare.

Not much work has been done on the overlap between the two conditions, both of which are believed to be driven by the action of both eosinophils and helper T cells, according to Linda Pham, DO, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“I have a colleague who is interested in GI and he’s really interested in EOE. We thought it would be nice to look at those populations of patients to see if there’s a correlation between them aside from just the atopic disease,” said Dr. Pham, who is an internal medicine resident at Riverside (Calif.) Community Hospital.

The findings underscore the need for assessing individual patient risk. “Having another concomitant disease like EoE, or maybe like atopic dermatitis, might cause you to have more severe [asthma] exacerbations causing you to go into the hospital more. I think if patients have more of these diseases, doctors can be more cognizant that they need to really be on top of treatment and make sure that [their patients] are aware of themselves so that if their symptoms exacerbate, they can go to the hospital and seek care,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was a retrospective analysis of 3,678,812 patients with asthma and 5,823 patients with both EoE and asthma. The data was drawn from 185 HCA hospitals, with records between 2016 and 2021.

The incidence of both asthma and asthma with EoE remained stable between 2016 and 2021. Dr. Pham pointed out that there are good methods to diagnose both conditions, which suggests that existing treatments are effective enough to be limiting the need for emergency treatment, according to Dr. Pham.

Among patients hospitalized with asthma alone, 72.55% were female, while 27.45% were male (P < .001). The numbers were much more evenly split among those with asthma and EoE, at 51.78% and 48.22%, respectively. The differing gender statistics aren’t easy to explain. “It’s not quite clear whether it’s because they just have more severe symptoms, or if it is other factors causing women to seek care more than their male counterparts. It could be personal biases, or it could be the asthma itself that is more severe in women,” said Dr. Pham.

When they broke down the analysis by sex, the researchers found that male EoE patients without asthma were a mean value of 5.517 years older than male EoE patients with asthma, and the mean difference was 5.480 years in female patients (P < .001 for both).

Although the direct cause of earlier hospitalization among patients with concomitant EoE and asthma is unclear, Dr. Pham speculated that the combination of atopic diseases may be leading to a stronger inflammatory response.

It remains to be seen if a similar relationship occurs with other atopic diseases, and future research could examine other factors. “I think it’d be good to look at not just age and gender, but BMI and occupation, things like that,” said Dr. Pham.

The study was of particular interest to Michelle Robertson, MD, who was in the audience. She is the director for clinical services at the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence at the New Jersey War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center. “We see a significant number of [veterans] who have been diagnosed with both asthma and eosinophilic esophagitis, and our thinking is that that is likely related to some of the military exposures: In particular, [what the] deployed veterans encountered in the Gulf War, [such as] the smoke from burn pits, sand and dust storms, and smoke from oil well fires. Our thinking is that the particulate matter, the PM 2.5, the very, very tiny particles, may be either sensitizing the lung area and/or esophagus and predisposing them to having those symptoms when they return home,” said Dr. Robertson, in an interview.

Particles in this size range may be able to bypass the protected areas of the nose and the lungs to reach the alveoli, where they could potentially interfere with the transfer of air between the lungs and the rest of the body, which could in turn lead to a variety of inflammatory conditions, according to Dr. Robertson.

She noted that particle exposure varies with a soldier’s wartime occupation, with higher exposures among mechanics and burn pit managers, for example. However, the highest levels of exposure do not predict later illness, which is a natural prompt for future research. “The second part of this whole pathophysiology is susceptibility. Is there something about those people that do get sick that makes them more susceptible than folks that don’t, even though they both have the same jobs?”

Dr. Pham and Dr. Robertson have no relevant financial disclosures.
 

HONOLULU – The diversity of species in the sputum of patients undergoing therapy for nontuberculosis mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) could be a marker for treatment efficacy, authors of a small prospective study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge

Among 14 patients treated for NTM-PD, 7 of whom had treatment-refractory disease and 7 of whom had microbiological cures after antibiotic therapy, the diversity of the microbiome in sputum was greater for those patients who were cured, indicating that the variety of species found in sputum during treatment could help clinicians evaluate the efficacy of therapy and guide patient management, said Noeul Kang, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“What we found was that in NTM-PD patients, the sputum of the patients who remained in long-time stabilization without recurrence exhibited higher microbiome diversity than that of treatment-refractory patients, and several genera were identified in the samples of the cured group. We hope to do more research on this, and we are planning to compare the patients who have never been treated with those who respond to treatment,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

NTM-PD on the rise

The incidence and prevalence of NTM-PD in both South Korea and the United States have been rising steadily since 2007, with the highest incidence occurring among those 65 and older.

“NTM-PD is becoming a global burden,” Dr. Kang said.

Across the world the most commonly occurring organisms in NTM-PD patients are Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), with other mycobacteria species varying in frequency by region.

Outcomes of treatment differ according to the etiologic organism, with M. avium complex infections being successfully treated in about 60% of patients, compared with 70% of patients’ infections with the M. abscessus massiliense, and 30%-40% of infections yielding to antibiotics in patients with M. abscessus abscessus, Dr. Kang said.

To compare the characteristics of the sputum microbiota of NTM-PD patients based on their treatment outcomes, Dr. Kang and colleagues looked at sputum from all patients with NTM-PD who agreed to provide samples at their center from 2018 through 2022.

After excluding those who did not receive antibiotics, those who were on treatment but did not have refractory disease, and those who were lost to follow-up or whose samples did not pass quality control, they identified seven patients who had microbiological cures, and seven whose disease remained refractory to treatment.

They defined culture conversion at three or more consecutive negative sputum cultures after treatment, collected at least 4 weeks apart, and microbiological cures at maintenance of multiple consecutive negative cultures without any positive cultures of the causative species from respiratory samples.

Infections were deemed to be refractory if there were sustained positive cultures from respiratory samples of causative NTM species after at least 1 year of antibiotic therapy.
 

Diversity analysis

Samples from 8 of the 14 participants had M. abscessus-PD, with the proportion higher among those who had a sustained microbiological cure (71.4% vs. 42.9%).

At baseline, patients with refractory disease were found to have significantly lower alpha diversity, a measure of microbial diversity within a single sample, compared with those whose infections were cured (P = .025).

In addition, samples at 6-month follow-up from those with baseline ­refractory infections ­had differences in the species level of beta-diversity (that is, differences among samples), compared with both baseline and follow-up samples from the cured group (P = .022 and .024, respectively).

The investigators also used linear discriminant analysis to look at taxonomic biomarkers, and observed that several species were more abundant in samples from the microbiological cure group than from the refractory disease group (P < .05) These species included organisms in the Streptococcus pneumoniae group, Prevotella melaninogenica, and Haemophilus parahaemolyticus group.
 

Promising start

A pulmonologist who was not involved in the study commented in an interview that, although the findings need further study, the microbiome of sputum samples has the potential for predictive value.

“I think this will be clinically useful, actually, if we’re able to identify and diagnose patients with MAC disease and then we identify their sputum microbiome, it might give us an idea whether these patients are more sensitive or refractory to treatment,” said Muhammad U. Khawar, MD, from the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Khawar moderated the session where Dr. Kang reported her data.

The investigators did not report a funding source. Dr. Kang and Dr. Khawar reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

HONOLULU – The diversity of species in the sputum of patients undergoing therapy for nontuberculosis mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) could be a marker for treatment efficacy, authors of a small prospective study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge

Among 14 patients treated for NTM-PD, 7 of whom had treatment-refractory disease and 7 of whom had microbiological cures after antibiotic therapy, the diversity of the microbiome in sputum was greater for those patients who were cured, indicating that the variety of species found in sputum during treatment could help clinicians evaluate the efficacy of therapy and guide patient management, said Noeul Kang, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“What we found was that in NTM-PD patients, the sputum of the patients who remained in long-time stabilization without recurrence exhibited higher microbiome diversity than that of treatment-refractory patients, and several genera were identified in the samples of the cured group. We hope to do more research on this, and we are planning to compare the patients who have never been treated with those who respond to treatment,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

NTM-PD on the rise

The incidence and prevalence of NTM-PD in both South Korea and the United States have been rising steadily since 2007, with the highest incidence occurring among those 65 and older.

“NTM-PD is becoming a global burden,” Dr. Kang said.

Across the world the most commonly occurring organisms in NTM-PD patients are Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), with other mycobacteria species varying in frequency by region.

Outcomes of treatment differ according to the etiologic organism, with M. avium complex infections being successfully treated in about 60% of patients, compared with 70% of patients’ infections with the M. abscessus massiliense, and 30%-40% of infections yielding to antibiotics in patients with M. abscessus abscessus, Dr. Kang said.

To compare the characteristics of the sputum microbiota of NTM-PD patients based on their treatment outcomes, Dr. Kang and colleagues looked at sputum from all patients with NTM-PD who agreed to provide samples at their center from 2018 through 2022.

After excluding those who did not receive antibiotics, those who were on treatment but did not have refractory disease, and those who were lost to follow-up or whose samples did not pass quality control, they identified seven patients who had microbiological cures, and seven whose disease remained refractory to treatment.

They defined culture conversion at three or more consecutive negative sputum cultures after treatment, collected at least 4 weeks apart, and microbiological cures at maintenance of multiple consecutive negative cultures without any positive cultures of the causative species from respiratory samples.

Infections were deemed to be refractory if there were sustained positive cultures from respiratory samples of causative NTM species after at least 1 year of antibiotic therapy.
 

Diversity analysis

Samples from 8 of the 14 participants had M. abscessus-PD, with the proportion higher among those who had a sustained microbiological cure (71.4% vs. 42.9%).

At baseline, patients with refractory disease were found to have significantly lower alpha diversity, a measure of microbial diversity within a single sample, compared with those whose infections were cured (P = .025).

In addition, samples at 6-month follow-up from those with baseline ­refractory infections ­had differences in the species level of beta-diversity (that is, differences among samples), compared with both baseline and follow-up samples from the cured group (P = .022 and .024, respectively).

The investigators also used linear discriminant analysis to look at taxonomic biomarkers, and observed that several species were more abundant in samples from the microbiological cure group than from the refractory disease group (P < .05) These species included organisms in the Streptococcus pneumoniae group, Prevotella melaninogenica, and Haemophilus parahaemolyticus group.
 

Promising start

A pulmonologist who was not involved in the study commented in an interview that, although the findings need further study, the microbiome of sputum samples has the potential for predictive value.

“I think this will be clinically useful, actually, if we’re able to identify and diagnose patients with MAC disease and then we identify their sputum microbiome, it might give us an idea whether these patients are more sensitive or refractory to treatment,” said Muhammad U. Khawar, MD, from the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Khawar moderated the session where Dr. Kang reported her data.

The investigators did not report a funding source. Dr. Kang and Dr. Khawar reported that they had no relevant disclosures.
 

HONOLULU – The diversity of species in the sputum of patients undergoing therapy for nontuberculosis mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) could be a marker for treatment efficacy, authors of a small prospective study suggest.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge

Among 14 patients treated for NTM-PD, 7 of whom had treatment-refractory disease and 7 of whom had microbiological cures after antibiotic therapy, the diversity of the microbiome in sputum was greater for those patients who were cured, indicating that the variety of species found in sputum during treatment could help clinicians evaluate the efficacy of therapy and guide patient management, said Noeul Kang, MD, PhD, from Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“What we found was that in NTM-PD patients, the sputum of the patients who remained in long-time stabilization without recurrence exhibited higher microbiome diversity than that of treatment-refractory patients, and several genera were identified in the samples of the cured group. We hope to do more research on this, and we are planning to compare the patients who have never been treated with those who respond to treatment,” she said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

NTM-PD on the rise

The incidence and prevalence of NTM-PD in both South Korea and the United States have been rising steadily since 2007, with the highest incidence occurring among those 65 and older.

“NTM-PD is becoming a global burden,” Dr. Kang said.

Across the world the most commonly occurring organisms in NTM-PD patients are Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), with other mycobacteria species varying in frequency by region.

Outcomes of treatment differ according to the etiologic organism, with M. avium complex infections being successfully treated in about 60% of patients, compared with 70% of patients’ infections with the M. abscessus massiliense, and 30%-40% of infections yielding to antibiotics in patients with M. abscessus abscessus, Dr. Kang said.

To compare the characteristics of the sputum microbiota of NTM-PD patients based on their treatment outcomes, Dr. Kang and colleagues looked at sputum from all patients with NTM-PD who agreed to provide samples at their center from 2018 through 2022.

After excluding those who did not receive antibiotics, those who were on treatment but did not have refractory disease, and those who were lost to follow-up or whose samples did not pass quality control, they identified seven patients who had microbiological cures, and seven whose disease remained refractory to treatment.

They defined culture conversion at three or more consecutive negative sputum cultures after treatment, collected at least 4 weeks apart, and microbiological cures at maintenance of multiple consecutive negative cultures without any positive cultures of the causative species from respiratory samples.

Infections were deemed to be refractory if there were sustained positive cultures from respiratory samples of causative NTM species after at least 1 year of antibiotic therapy.
 

Diversity analysis

Samples from 8 of the 14 participants had M. abscessus-PD, with the proportion higher among those who had a sustained microbiological cure (71.4% vs. 42.9%).

At baseline, patients with refractory disease were found to have significantly lower alpha diversity, a measure of microbial diversity within a single sample, compared with those whose infections were cured (P = .025).

In addition, samples at 6-month follow-up from those with baseline ­refractory infections ­had differences in the species level of beta-diversity (that is, differences among samples), compared with both baseline and follow-up samples from the cured group (P = .022 and .024, respectively).

The investigators also used linear discriminant analysis to look at taxonomic biomarkers, and observed that several species were more abundant in samples from the microbiological cure group than from the refractory disease group (P < .05) These species included organisms in the Streptococcus pneumoniae group, Prevotella melaninogenica, and Haemophilus parahaemolyticus group.
 

Promising start

A pulmonologist who was not involved in the study commented in an interview that, although the findings need further study, the microbiome of sputum samples has the potential for predictive value.

“I think this will be clinically useful, actually, if we’re able to identify and diagnose patients with MAC disease and then we identify their sputum microbiome, it might give us an idea whether these patients are more sensitive or refractory to treatment,” said Muhammad U. Khawar, MD, from the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Khawar moderated the session where Dr. Kang reported her data.

The investigators did not report a funding source. Dr. Kang and Dr. Khawar reported that they had no relevant disclosures.