Pulmonology

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].

It would be overused and trite to say that the pandemic has drastically altered all of our lives and will cause lasting impact on how we function in society and medicine for years to come. While it seems that the current trend of the latest Omicron variant is on the downslope, the path to get to this point has been fraught with challenges that have struck at the very core of our society. As a primary care physician on the front lines seeing COVID patients, I have had to deal with not only the disease but the politics around it. As critical and life saving as the vaccines have been, many physicians have not been able to get access to these vaccines and give them to their patients. I am one of those physicians. I practice in Florida, and I still cannot give COVID vaccines in my office. 

I am a firm believer in the ability for physicians to be able to give all the necessary adult vaccines and provide them for their patients. The COVID vaccine exacerbated a majorly flawed system that further increased the health care disparities in the country. The current vaccine system for the majority of adult vaccines involves the physician’s being able to directly purchase supplies from the vaccine manufacturer, administer them to the patients, and be reimbursed.
 

Third parties can purchase vaccines at lower rates than those for physicians

The Affordable Care Act mandates that all vaccines approved by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be covered. This allows for better access to care as physicians will be able to purchase, store, and deliver vaccines to their patients. The fallacy in this system is that third parties get involved and rebates or incentives are given to these groups to purchase vaccines at a rate lower than those for physicians.

In addition, many organizations can get access to vaccines before physicians and at a lower cost. That system was flawed to begin with and created a deterrent for access to care and physician involvement in the vaccination process. This was worsened by different states being given the ability to decide how vaccines would be distributed for COVID.

Many pharmacies were able to give out COVID vaccines while many physician offices still have not received access to any of the vaccines. One of the major safety issues with this is that no physicians were involved in the administration of the vaccine, and it is unclear what training was given to the individuals injecting that vaccine. Finally, different places were interpreting the recommendations from ACIP on their own and not necessarily following the appropriate guidelines. All of these factors have further widened the health care disparity gap and made it difficult to provide the COVID vaccines in doctors’ offices.
 

Recommended next steps, solutions to problem

The question is what to do about this. The most important thing is to get the vaccines in arms so they can save lives. In addition, doctors need to be able to get the vaccines in their offices.

Many patients trust their physicians to advise them on what to do regarding health care. The majority of patients want to know if they should get the vaccine and ask for counseling. Physicians answering patients’ questions about vaccines is an important step in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Also, doctors need to be informed and supportive of the vaccine process.

The next step is the governmental aspect with those in power making sure that vaccines are accessible to all. Even if the vaccine cannot be given in the office, doctors should still be recommending that patients receive them. Plus, doctors should take every opportunity to ask about what vaccines their patients have received and encourage their patients to get vaccinated.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective and have been monitored for safety more than any other vaccine. There are multiple systems in place to look for any signals that could indicate an issue was caused by a COVID-19 vaccine. These vaccines can be administered with other vaccines, and there is a great opportunity for physicians to encourage patients to receive these life-saving vaccines.

While it may seem that the COVID-19 case counts are on the downslope, the importance of continuing to vaccinate is predicated on the very real concern that the disease is still circulating and the unvaccinated are still at risk for severe infection.

Dr. Goldman is immediate past governor of the Florida chapter of the American College of Physicians, a regent for the American College of Physicians, vice-president of the Florida Medical Association, and president of the Florida Medical Association Political Action Committee. You can reach Dr. Goldman at [email protected].

A study of the nasal microbiome helped researchers predict recurrent polyps in chronic rhinosinusitis patients with more than 90% accuracy, based on data from 85 individuals.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has a significant impact on patient quality of life, but the underlying mechanism of the disease has not been well studied, and treatment options remain limited, wrote Yan Zhao, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and study coauthors.

Previous research has shown that nasal microbiome composition differs in patients with and without asthma, and some studies suggest that changes in microbiota could contribute to CRSwNP, the authors wrote. The researchers wondered if features of the nasal microbiome can predict the recurrence of nasal polyps after endoscopic sinus surgery and serve as a potential treatment target.

In a study in Allergy, the researchers examined nasal swab samples from 85 adults with CRSwNP who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery between August 2014 and March 2016 at a single center in China. The researchers performed bacterial analysis and gene sequencing on all samples.

The patients ranged in age from 18-73 years, with a mean age of 46 years, and included 64 men and 21 women. The primary outcome was recurrence of polyps. Of the total, 39 individuals had recurrence, and 46 did not.

When the researchers compared microbiota from swab samples of recurrent and nonrecurrent patients, they found differences in composition based on bacterial genus abundance. “Campylobacter, Bdellovibrio, and Aggregatibacter, among others, were more abundant in swabs from CRSwNP recurrence samples, whereas Actinobacillus, Gemella, and Moraxella were more abundant in non-recurrence samples,” they wrote.

The researchers then tested their theory that distinct nasal microbiota could be a predictive marker of risk for future nasal polyp recurrence. They used a training set of 48 samples and constructed models from nasal microbiota alone, clinical features alone, and both together.

The regression model identified Porphyromonas, Bacteroides, Moryella, Aggregatibacter, Butyrivibrio, Shewanella, Pseudoxanthomonas, Friedmanniella, Limnobacter, and Curvibacter as the most important taxa that distinguished recurrence from nonrecurrence in the specimens. When the model was validated, the area under the curve was 0.914, yielding a predictor of nasal polyp recurrence with 91.4% accuracy.

“It is highly likely that proteins, nucleic acids, and other small molecules produced by nasal microbiota are associated with the progression of CRSwNP,” the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Further, the nasal microbiota could maintain a stable community environment through the secretion of various chemical compounds and/or inflammatory factors, thus playing a central role in the development of CRSwNP.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the analysis of nasal flora only at the genus level in the screening phase, the use only of bioinformatic analysis for recurrence prediction, and the inclusion only of subjects from a single center, the researchers noted. Future studies should combine predictors to increase accuracy and include deeper sequencing, they said. However, the results support data from previous studies and suggest a strategy to meet the need for predictors of recurrence in CRSwNP, they concluded.

“There is a critical need to understand the role of the upper airway microbiome in different phenotypes of CRS,” said Emily K. Cope, PhD, assistant director at the Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, in an interview. “This was one of the first studies to evaluate the predictive power of the microbiome in recurrence of a common CRS phenotype – CRS with nasal polyps,” she said. “Importantly, the researchers were able to predict recurrence of polyps prior to the disease manifestation,” she noted.  

“Given the nascent state of current upper airway microbiome research, I was surprised that they were able to predict polyp recurrence prior to disease manifestation,” Dr. Cope said. “This is exciting, and I can imagine a future where we use microbiome data to understand risk for disease.”

What is the take-home message for clinicians? Although the immediate clinical implications are limited, Dr. Cope expressed enthusiasm for additional research. “At this point, there’s not a lot we can do without validation studies, but this study is promising. I hope we can understand the mechanism that an altered microbiome might drive (or be a result of) polyposis,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the program for the Changjiang scholars and innovative research team, the Beijing Bai-Qian-Wan talent project, the Public Welfare Development and Reform Pilot Project, the National Science and Technology Major Project, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The researchers and Dr. Cope disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

A study of the nasal microbiome helped researchers predict recurrent polyps in chronic rhinosinusitis patients with more than 90% accuracy, based on data from 85 individuals.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has a significant impact on patient quality of life, but the underlying mechanism of the disease has not been well studied, and treatment options remain limited, wrote Yan Zhao, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and study coauthors.

Previous research has shown that nasal microbiome composition differs in patients with and without asthma, and some studies suggest that changes in microbiota could contribute to CRSwNP, the authors wrote. The researchers wondered if features of the nasal microbiome can predict the recurrence of nasal polyps after endoscopic sinus surgery and serve as a potential treatment target.

In a study in Allergy, the researchers examined nasal swab samples from 85 adults with CRSwNP who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery between August 2014 and March 2016 at a single center in China. The researchers performed bacterial analysis and gene sequencing on all samples.

The patients ranged in age from 18-73 years, with a mean age of 46 years, and included 64 men and 21 women. The primary outcome was recurrence of polyps. Of the total, 39 individuals had recurrence, and 46 did not.

When the researchers compared microbiota from swab samples of recurrent and nonrecurrent patients, they found differences in composition based on bacterial genus abundance. “Campylobacter, Bdellovibrio, and Aggregatibacter, among others, were more abundant in swabs from CRSwNP recurrence samples, whereas Actinobacillus, Gemella, and Moraxella were more abundant in non-recurrence samples,” they wrote.

The researchers then tested their theory that distinct nasal microbiota could be a predictive marker of risk for future nasal polyp recurrence. They used a training set of 48 samples and constructed models from nasal microbiota alone, clinical features alone, and both together.

The regression model identified Porphyromonas, Bacteroides, Moryella, Aggregatibacter, Butyrivibrio, Shewanella, Pseudoxanthomonas, Friedmanniella, Limnobacter, and Curvibacter as the most important taxa that distinguished recurrence from nonrecurrence in the specimens. When the model was validated, the area under the curve was 0.914, yielding a predictor of nasal polyp recurrence with 91.4% accuracy.

“It is highly likely that proteins, nucleic acids, and other small molecules produced by nasal microbiota are associated with the progression of CRSwNP,” the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Further, the nasal microbiota could maintain a stable community environment through the secretion of various chemical compounds and/or inflammatory factors, thus playing a central role in the development of CRSwNP.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the analysis of nasal flora only at the genus level in the screening phase, the use only of bioinformatic analysis for recurrence prediction, and the inclusion only of subjects from a single center, the researchers noted. Future studies should combine predictors to increase accuracy and include deeper sequencing, they said. However, the results support data from previous studies and suggest a strategy to meet the need for predictors of recurrence in CRSwNP, they concluded.

“There is a critical need to understand the role of the upper airway microbiome in different phenotypes of CRS,” said Emily K. Cope, PhD, assistant director at the Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, in an interview. “This was one of the first studies to evaluate the predictive power of the microbiome in recurrence of a common CRS phenotype – CRS with nasal polyps,” she said. “Importantly, the researchers were able to predict recurrence of polyps prior to the disease manifestation,” she noted.  

“Given the nascent state of current upper airway microbiome research, I was surprised that they were able to predict polyp recurrence prior to disease manifestation,” Dr. Cope said. “This is exciting, and I can imagine a future where we use microbiome data to understand risk for disease.”

What is the take-home message for clinicians? Although the immediate clinical implications are limited, Dr. Cope expressed enthusiasm for additional research. “At this point, there’s not a lot we can do without validation studies, but this study is promising. I hope we can understand the mechanism that an altered microbiome might drive (or be a result of) polyposis,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the program for the Changjiang scholars and innovative research team, the Beijing Bai-Qian-Wan talent project, the Public Welfare Development and Reform Pilot Project, the National Science and Technology Major Project, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The researchers and Dr. Cope disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

A study of the nasal microbiome helped researchers predict recurrent polyps in chronic rhinosinusitis patients with more than 90% accuracy, based on data from 85 individuals.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has a significant impact on patient quality of life, but the underlying mechanism of the disease has not been well studied, and treatment options remain limited, wrote Yan Zhao, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and study coauthors.

Previous research has shown that nasal microbiome composition differs in patients with and without asthma, and some studies suggest that changes in microbiota could contribute to CRSwNP, the authors wrote. The researchers wondered if features of the nasal microbiome can predict the recurrence of nasal polyps after endoscopic sinus surgery and serve as a potential treatment target.

In a study in Allergy, the researchers examined nasal swab samples from 85 adults with CRSwNP who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery between August 2014 and March 2016 at a single center in China. The researchers performed bacterial analysis and gene sequencing on all samples.

The patients ranged in age from 18-73 years, with a mean age of 46 years, and included 64 men and 21 women. The primary outcome was recurrence of polyps. Of the total, 39 individuals had recurrence, and 46 did not.

When the researchers compared microbiota from swab samples of recurrent and nonrecurrent patients, they found differences in composition based on bacterial genus abundance. “Campylobacter, Bdellovibrio, and Aggregatibacter, among others, were more abundant in swabs from CRSwNP recurrence samples, whereas Actinobacillus, Gemella, and Moraxella were more abundant in non-recurrence samples,” they wrote.

The researchers then tested their theory that distinct nasal microbiota could be a predictive marker of risk for future nasal polyp recurrence. They used a training set of 48 samples and constructed models from nasal microbiota alone, clinical features alone, and both together.

The regression model identified Porphyromonas, Bacteroides, Moryella, Aggregatibacter, Butyrivibrio, Shewanella, Pseudoxanthomonas, Friedmanniella, Limnobacter, and Curvibacter as the most important taxa that distinguished recurrence from nonrecurrence in the specimens. When the model was validated, the area under the curve was 0.914, yielding a predictor of nasal polyp recurrence with 91.4% accuracy.

“It is highly likely that proteins, nucleic acids, and other small molecules produced by nasal microbiota are associated with the progression of CRSwNP,” the researchers noted in their discussion of the findings. “Further, the nasal microbiota could maintain a stable community environment through the secretion of various chemical compounds and/or inflammatory factors, thus playing a central role in the development of CRSwNP.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the analysis of nasal flora only at the genus level in the screening phase, the use only of bioinformatic analysis for recurrence prediction, and the inclusion only of subjects from a single center, the researchers noted. Future studies should combine predictors to increase accuracy and include deeper sequencing, they said. However, the results support data from previous studies and suggest a strategy to meet the need for predictors of recurrence in CRSwNP, they concluded.

“There is a critical need to understand the role of the upper airway microbiome in different phenotypes of CRS,” said Emily K. Cope, PhD, assistant director at the Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, in an interview. “This was one of the first studies to evaluate the predictive power of the microbiome in recurrence of a common CRS phenotype – CRS with nasal polyps,” she said. “Importantly, the researchers were able to predict recurrence of polyps prior to the disease manifestation,” she noted.  

“Given the nascent state of current upper airway microbiome research, I was surprised that they were able to predict polyp recurrence prior to disease manifestation,” Dr. Cope said. “This is exciting, and I can imagine a future where we use microbiome data to understand risk for disease.”

What is the take-home message for clinicians? Although the immediate clinical implications are limited, Dr. Cope expressed enthusiasm for additional research. “At this point, there’s not a lot we can do without validation studies, but this study is promising. I hope we can understand the mechanism that an altered microbiome might drive (or be a result of) polyposis,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the program for the Changjiang scholars and innovative research team, the Beijing Bai-Qian-Wan talent project, the Public Welfare Development and Reform Pilot Project, the National Science and Technology Major Project, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The researchers and Dr. Cope disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Legionnaires’ disease (LD) in the United States appears to be on an upswing that started in 2003, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The reasons for this increased incidence are unclear, the researchers write in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“The findings revealed a rising national trend in cases, widening racial disparities between Black or African American persons and White persons, and an increasing geographic focus in the Middle Atlantic, the East North Central, and New England,” lead author Albert E. Barskey, MPH, an epidemiologist in CDC’s Division of Bacterial Diseases, Atlanta, said in an email.

“Legionnaires’ disease cannot be diagnosed based on clinical features alone, and studies estimate that it is underdiagnosed, perhaps by 50%,” he added. “Our findings may serve to heighten clinicians’ awareness of this severe pneumonia’s etiology, so with an earlier correct diagnosis, appropriate treatment can be rendered sooner.”

Mr. Barskey and his coauthors at CDC – mathematical statistician Gordana Derado, PhD, and epidemiologist Chris Edens, PhD – used surveillance data to investigate the incidence of LD in the U.S. over time. They compared LD incidence in 2018 with average incidence between 1992 and 2002. The incidence data, from over 80,000 LD cases, were age-standardized using the 2005 U.S. standard population as the reference.

The researchers analyzed LD data reported to CDC by the 50 states, New York City, and Washington, D.C., through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. They performed regression analysis to identify the optimal year when population parameters changed, and for most analyses, they compared 1992-2002 data with 2003-2018 data.
 

Legionnaires’ disease up in various groups

• The overall age-standardized average incidence grew from 0.48 per 100,000 people during 1992-2002 to 2.71 per 100,000 in 2018 (incidence risk ratio, 5.67; 95% confidence interval, 5.52-5.83).
• LD incidence more than quintupled for people over 34 years of age, with the largest relative increase in those over 85 (RR, 6.50; 95% CI, 5.82-7.27).
• Incidence in men increased slightly more (RR, 5.86; 95% CI, 5.67-6.05) than in women (RR, 5.29; 95% CI, 5.06-5.53).
• Over the years, the racial disparity in incidence grew markedly. Incidence in Black persons increased from 0.47 to 5.21 per 100,000 (RR, 11.04; 95% CI, 10.39-11.73), compared with an increase from 0.37 to 1.99 per 100,000 in White persons (RR, 5.30; 95% CI, 5.12-5.49).
• The relative increase in incidence was highest in the Northeast (RR, 7.04; 95% CI, 6.70-7.40), followed by the Midwest (RR, 6.13; 95% CI, 5.85-6.42), the South (RR, 5.97; 95% CI, 5.67-6.29), and the West (RR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.11-3.68).

Most LD cases occurred in summer or fall, and the seasonal pattern became more pronounced over time. The average of 57.8% of cases between June and November during 1992-2002 grew to 68.9% in 2003-2018.

Although the study “was hindered by incomplete race and ethnicity data,” Mr. Barskey said, “its breadth was a strength.”
 

Consider legionella in your diagnosis

In an interview, Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, a professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said he was not surprised by the results. “CDC has been reporting increased incidence of Legionnaires’ disease from water source outbreaks over the years. As a clinician, I very much depend on epidemiologic trends to help me understand the patient in front of me.

“The key point is that there’s more of it around, so consider it in your diagnosis,” he advised.

“Physicians are increasingly beginning to consider Legionella. Because LD is difficult to diagnose by traditional methods such as culture, they may use a PCR test,” said Dr. Auwaerter, who was not involved in the study. “Legionella needs antibiotics that differ a bit from traditional antibiotics used to treat bacterial pneumonia, so a correct diagnosis can inform a more directed therapy.”

“Why the incidence is increasing is the big question, and the authors nicely outline a litany of things,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Auwaerter proposed a number of possible contributing factors to the increased incidence:

• an aging population
• aging municipal and residential water sources that may harbor more organisms
• racial disparities and poverty
• underlying conditions, including diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and some cancers
• occupations in transportation, repair, cleaning services, and construction
• weather patterns
• improved surveillance and reporting

“Why Legionella appears in some locations more than others has not been explained,” Dr. Auwaerter added. “For example, Pittsburgh always seemed to have much more Legionella than Baltimore.”

Mr. Barskey and his team are planning further research into racial disparities and links between weather and climate and Legionnaires’ disease.

The authors are employees of CDC. Dr. Auwaerter has disclosed no relevant financial realtionships.

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

Legionnaires’ disease (LD) in the United States appears to be on an upswing that started in 2003, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The reasons for this increased incidence are unclear, the researchers write in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“The findings revealed a rising national trend in cases, widening racial disparities between Black or African American persons and White persons, and an increasing geographic focus in the Middle Atlantic, the East North Central, and New England,” lead author Albert E. Barskey, MPH, an epidemiologist in CDC’s Division of Bacterial Diseases, Atlanta, said in an email.

“Legionnaires’ disease cannot be diagnosed based on clinical features alone, and studies estimate that it is underdiagnosed, perhaps by 50%,” he added. “Our findings may serve to heighten clinicians’ awareness of this severe pneumonia’s etiology, so with an earlier correct diagnosis, appropriate treatment can be rendered sooner.”

Mr. Barskey and his coauthors at CDC – mathematical statistician Gordana Derado, PhD, and epidemiologist Chris Edens, PhD – used surveillance data to investigate the incidence of LD in the U.S. over time. They compared LD incidence in 2018 with average incidence between 1992 and 2002. The incidence data, from over 80,000 LD cases, were age-standardized using the 2005 U.S. standard population as the reference.

The researchers analyzed LD data reported to CDC by the 50 states, New York City, and Washington, D.C., through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. They performed regression analysis to identify the optimal year when population parameters changed, and for most analyses, they compared 1992-2002 data with 2003-2018 data.
 

Legionnaires’ disease up in various groups

• The overall age-standardized average incidence grew from 0.48 per 100,000 people during 1992-2002 to 2.71 per 100,000 in 2018 (incidence risk ratio, 5.67; 95% confidence interval, 5.52-5.83).
• LD incidence more than quintupled for people over 34 years of age, with the largest relative increase in those over 85 (RR, 6.50; 95% CI, 5.82-7.27).
• Incidence in men increased slightly more (RR, 5.86; 95% CI, 5.67-6.05) than in women (RR, 5.29; 95% CI, 5.06-5.53).
• Over the years, the racial disparity in incidence grew markedly. Incidence in Black persons increased from 0.47 to 5.21 per 100,000 (RR, 11.04; 95% CI, 10.39-11.73), compared with an increase from 0.37 to 1.99 per 100,000 in White persons (RR, 5.30; 95% CI, 5.12-5.49).
• The relative increase in incidence was highest in the Northeast (RR, 7.04; 95% CI, 6.70-7.40), followed by the Midwest (RR, 6.13; 95% CI, 5.85-6.42), the South (RR, 5.97; 95% CI, 5.67-6.29), and the West (RR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.11-3.68).

Most LD cases occurred in summer or fall, and the seasonal pattern became more pronounced over time. The average of 57.8% of cases between June and November during 1992-2002 grew to 68.9% in 2003-2018.

Although the study “was hindered by incomplete race and ethnicity data,” Mr. Barskey said, “its breadth was a strength.”
 

Consider legionella in your diagnosis

In an interview, Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, a professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said he was not surprised by the results. “CDC has been reporting increased incidence of Legionnaires’ disease from water source outbreaks over the years. As a clinician, I very much depend on epidemiologic trends to help me understand the patient in front of me.

“The key point is that there’s more of it around, so consider it in your diagnosis,” he advised.

“Physicians are increasingly beginning to consider Legionella. Because LD is difficult to diagnose by traditional methods such as culture, they may use a PCR test,” said Dr. Auwaerter, who was not involved in the study. “Legionella needs antibiotics that differ a bit from traditional antibiotics used to treat bacterial pneumonia, so a correct diagnosis can inform a more directed therapy.”

“Why the incidence is increasing is the big question, and the authors nicely outline a litany of things,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Auwaerter proposed a number of possible contributing factors to the increased incidence:

• an aging population
• aging municipal and residential water sources that may harbor more organisms
• racial disparities and poverty
• underlying conditions, including diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and some cancers
• occupations in transportation, repair, cleaning services, and construction
• weather patterns
• improved surveillance and reporting

“Why Legionella appears in some locations more than others has not been explained,” Dr. Auwaerter added. “For example, Pittsburgh always seemed to have much more Legionella than Baltimore.”

Mr. Barskey and his team are planning further research into racial disparities and links between weather and climate and Legionnaires’ disease.

The authors are employees of CDC. Dr. Auwaerter has disclosed no relevant financial realtionships.

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

Legionnaires’ disease (LD) in the United States appears to be on an upswing that started in 2003, according to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The reasons for this increased incidence are unclear, the researchers write in Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“The findings revealed a rising national trend in cases, widening racial disparities between Black or African American persons and White persons, and an increasing geographic focus in the Middle Atlantic, the East North Central, and New England,” lead author Albert E. Barskey, MPH, an epidemiologist in CDC’s Division of Bacterial Diseases, Atlanta, said in an email.

“Legionnaires’ disease cannot be diagnosed based on clinical features alone, and studies estimate that it is underdiagnosed, perhaps by 50%,” he added. “Our findings may serve to heighten clinicians’ awareness of this severe pneumonia’s etiology, so with an earlier correct diagnosis, appropriate treatment can be rendered sooner.”

Mr. Barskey and his coauthors at CDC – mathematical statistician Gordana Derado, PhD, and epidemiologist Chris Edens, PhD – used surveillance data to investigate the incidence of LD in the U.S. over time. They compared LD incidence in 2018 with average incidence between 1992 and 2002. The incidence data, from over 80,000 LD cases, were age-standardized using the 2005 U.S. standard population as the reference.

The researchers analyzed LD data reported to CDC by the 50 states, New York City, and Washington, D.C., through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. They performed regression analysis to identify the optimal year when population parameters changed, and for most analyses, they compared 1992-2002 data with 2003-2018 data.
 

Legionnaires’ disease up in various groups

• The overall age-standardized average incidence grew from 0.48 per 100,000 people during 1992-2002 to 2.71 per 100,000 in 2018 (incidence risk ratio, 5.67; 95% confidence interval, 5.52-5.83).
• LD incidence more than quintupled for people over 34 years of age, with the largest relative increase in those over 85 (RR, 6.50; 95% CI, 5.82-7.27).
• Incidence in men increased slightly more (RR, 5.86; 95% CI, 5.67-6.05) than in women (RR, 5.29; 95% CI, 5.06-5.53).
• Over the years, the racial disparity in incidence grew markedly. Incidence in Black persons increased from 0.47 to 5.21 per 100,000 (RR, 11.04; 95% CI, 10.39-11.73), compared with an increase from 0.37 to 1.99 per 100,000 in White persons (RR, 5.30; 95% CI, 5.12-5.49).
• The relative increase in incidence was highest in the Northeast (RR, 7.04; 95% CI, 6.70-7.40), followed by the Midwest (RR, 6.13; 95% CI, 5.85-6.42), the South (RR, 5.97; 95% CI, 5.67-6.29), and the West (RR, 3.39; 95% CI, 3.11-3.68).

Most LD cases occurred in summer or fall, and the seasonal pattern became more pronounced over time. The average of 57.8% of cases between June and November during 1992-2002 grew to 68.9% in 2003-2018.

Although the study “was hindered by incomplete race and ethnicity data,” Mr. Barskey said, “its breadth was a strength.”
 

Consider legionella in your diagnosis

In an interview, Paul G. Auwaerter, MD, a professor of medicine and the clinical director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said he was not surprised by the results. “CDC has been reporting increased incidence of Legionnaires’ disease from water source outbreaks over the years. As a clinician, I very much depend on epidemiologic trends to help me understand the patient in front of me.

“The key point is that there’s more of it around, so consider it in your diagnosis,” he advised.

“Physicians are increasingly beginning to consider Legionella. Because LD is difficult to diagnose by traditional methods such as culture, they may use a PCR test,” said Dr. Auwaerter, who was not involved in the study. “Legionella needs antibiotics that differ a bit from traditional antibiotics used to treat bacterial pneumonia, so a correct diagnosis can inform a more directed therapy.”

“Why the incidence is increasing is the big question, and the authors nicely outline a litany of things,” he said.

The authors and Dr. Auwaerter proposed a number of possible contributing factors to the increased incidence:

• an aging population
• aging municipal and residential water sources that may harbor more organisms
• racial disparities and poverty
• underlying conditions, including diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and some cancers
• occupations in transportation, repair, cleaning services, and construction
• weather patterns
• improved surveillance and reporting

“Why Legionella appears in some locations more than others has not been explained,” Dr. Auwaerter added. “For example, Pittsburgh always seemed to have much more Legionella than Baltimore.”

Mr. Barskey and his team are planning further research into racial disparities and links between weather and climate and Legionnaires’ disease.

The authors are employees of CDC. Dr. Auwaerter has disclosed no relevant financial realtionships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This study was published on Medrxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• in analyses of more than 100,000 women that used Mendelian randomization (MR) as a tool to reduce residual confounding.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between ANM and breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• The clear lack of a causal effect of ANM on the outcomes of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke in the MR analyses despite a strong inverse association seen in the observational data of this study (without MR) suggests residual confounding plays a substantial role in driving the observed outcomes.

Why this matters

• The authors said that, to their knowledge, this is the first study that has shown a causal association between older ANM and higher risk of postmenopausal lung cancer.
• This finding was directionally opposite to the significant protective effect of increased ANM documented in an observational analysis of roughly the same data as well as prior reports that did not use MR. This “notable inconsistency” suggests very substantial residual confounding without MR that could be driven by factors such as smoking, diet, and exercise.
• If these results are replicated in additional datasets, it would highlight a need for randomized, controlled trials of antiestrogen therapies in postmenopausal women for the prevention or treatment of lung cancer.

Study design

• The study included data from 106,853 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and 95,464 women who were 37-73 years old included in the UK Biobank (UKB). Analyses for each outcome also included data from smaller numbers of women obtained from several additional datasets.
• The MR analysis used up to 55 single-nucleotide polymorphisms previously discovered through a genome-wide association study of about 70,000 women of European ancestry and independent of all datasets analyzed in the current study. The authors included all single-nucleotide polymorphisms with a consistent direction of effect on ANM.
• The MR analysis for lung cancer included 113,371 women from the two primary datasets and an additional 3012 women from six additional datasets.
• The MR analysis for bone fracture involved 113,239 women from the WHI and UKB only. The MR analysis for osteoporosis involved 137,080 women from the WHI, UKB, and one additional external dataset.

Key results

• Results from a meta-analysis of the MR results using data from the WHI, UKB, and the additional datasets showed ANM was causally associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by an odds ratio of 1.35 for each 5-year increase in ANM. In contrast, the adjusted observational analysis of data just from the WHI and UKB showed a significant 11% relative risk reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR results also showed causally protective effects for fracture, with a 24% relative risk reduction, and for osteoporosis, with a 19% relative risk reduction for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between AMN and outcome for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Limitations

The main limitation of the MR study was the potential for inadequate power for assessing some outcomes despite the large overall size of the study cohort. Lack of adequate power may be responsible for some of the nonsignificant associations seen in the study, such as for breast and endometrial cancers, where substantial prior evidence has implicated increased risk through the effects of prolonged exposure to endogenous or exogenous estrogens.

The healthy cohort effect in the UKB is a known weakness of this dataset that may have limited the number of cases and generalizability of findings.

Osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease were self-reported.

The study only included participants of European ancestry because most subjects in most of the cohorts examined were White women and the applied MR instruments were found by genome-wide association studies run predominantly in White women. The authors said the causal effects of ANM need study in more diverse populations.
 

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• None of the authors had disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Genetic evidence for causal relationships between age at natural menopause and the risk of aging-associated adverse health outcomes,” written by authors primarily based at Stanford University School of Medicine i

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

This study was published on Medrxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• in analyses of more than 100,000 women that used Mendelian randomization (MR) as a tool to reduce residual confounding.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between ANM and breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• The clear lack of a causal effect of ANM on the outcomes of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke in the MR analyses despite a strong inverse association seen in the observational data of this study (without MR) suggests residual confounding plays a substantial role in driving the observed outcomes.

Why this matters

• The authors said that, to their knowledge, this is the first study that has shown a causal association between older ANM and higher risk of postmenopausal lung cancer.
• This finding was directionally opposite to the significant protective effect of increased ANM documented in an observational analysis of roughly the same data as well as prior reports that did not use MR. This “notable inconsistency” suggests very substantial residual confounding without MR that could be driven by factors such as smoking, diet, and exercise.
• If these results are replicated in additional datasets, it would highlight a need for randomized, controlled trials of antiestrogen therapies in postmenopausal women for the prevention or treatment of lung cancer.

Study design

• The study included data from 106,853 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and 95,464 women who were 37-73 years old included in the UK Biobank (UKB). Analyses for each outcome also included data from smaller numbers of women obtained from several additional datasets.
• The MR analysis used up to 55 single-nucleotide polymorphisms previously discovered through a genome-wide association study of about 70,000 women of European ancestry and independent of all datasets analyzed in the current study. The authors included all single-nucleotide polymorphisms with a consistent direction of effect on ANM.
• The MR analysis for lung cancer included 113,371 women from the two primary datasets and an additional 3012 women from six additional datasets.
• The MR analysis for bone fracture involved 113,239 women from the WHI and UKB only. The MR analysis for osteoporosis involved 137,080 women from the WHI, UKB, and one additional external dataset.

Key results

• Results from a meta-analysis of the MR results using data from the WHI, UKB, and the additional datasets showed ANM was causally associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by an odds ratio of 1.35 for each 5-year increase in ANM. In contrast, the adjusted observational analysis of data just from the WHI and UKB showed a significant 11% relative risk reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR results also showed causally protective effects for fracture, with a 24% relative risk reduction, and for osteoporosis, with a 19% relative risk reduction for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between AMN and outcome for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Limitations

The main limitation of the MR study was the potential for inadequate power for assessing some outcomes despite the large overall size of the study cohort. Lack of adequate power may be responsible for some of the nonsignificant associations seen in the study, such as for breast and endometrial cancers, where substantial prior evidence has implicated increased risk through the effects of prolonged exposure to endogenous or exogenous estrogens.

The healthy cohort effect in the UKB is a known weakness of this dataset that may have limited the number of cases and generalizability of findings.

Osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease were self-reported.

The study only included participants of European ancestry because most subjects in most of the cohorts examined were White women and the applied MR instruments were found by genome-wide association studies run predominantly in White women. The authors said the causal effects of ANM need study in more diverse populations.
 

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• None of the authors had disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Genetic evidence for causal relationships between age at natural menopause and the risk of aging-associated adverse health outcomes,” written by authors primarily based at Stanford University School of Medicine i

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

This study was published on Medrxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• in analyses of more than 100,000 women that used Mendelian randomization (MR) as a tool to reduce residual confounding.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between ANM and breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• The clear lack of a causal effect of ANM on the outcomes of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke in the MR analyses despite a strong inverse association seen in the observational data of this study (without MR) suggests residual confounding plays a substantial role in driving the observed outcomes.

Why this matters

• The authors said that, to their knowledge, this is the first study that has shown a causal association between older ANM and higher risk of postmenopausal lung cancer.
• This finding was directionally opposite to the significant protective effect of increased ANM documented in an observational analysis of roughly the same data as well as prior reports that did not use MR. This “notable inconsistency” suggests very substantial residual confounding without MR that could be driven by factors such as smoking, diet, and exercise.
• If these results are replicated in additional datasets, it would highlight a need for randomized, controlled trials of antiestrogen therapies in postmenopausal women for the prevention or treatment of lung cancer.

Study design

• The study included data from 106,853 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and 95,464 women who were 37-73 years old included in the UK Biobank (UKB). Analyses for each outcome also included data from smaller numbers of women obtained from several additional datasets.
• The MR analysis used up to 55 single-nucleotide polymorphisms previously discovered through a genome-wide association study of about 70,000 women of European ancestry and independent of all datasets analyzed in the current study. The authors included all single-nucleotide polymorphisms with a consistent direction of effect on ANM.
• The MR analysis for lung cancer included 113,371 women from the two primary datasets and an additional 3012 women from six additional datasets.
• The MR analysis for bone fracture involved 113,239 women from the WHI and UKB only. The MR analysis for osteoporosis involved 137,080 women from the WHI, UKB, and one additional external dataset.

Key results

• Results from a meta-analysis of the MR results using data from the WHI, UKB, and the additional datasets showed ANM was causally associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by an odds ratio of 1.35 for each 5-year increase in ANM. In contrast, the adjusted observational analysis of data just from the WHI and UKB showed a significant 11% relative risk reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR results also showed causally protective effects for fracture, with a 24% relative risk reduction, and for osteoporosis, with a 19% relative risk reduction for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between AMN and outcome for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Limitations

The main limitation of the MR study was the potential for inadequate power for assessing some outcomes despite the large overall size of the study cohort. Lack of adequate power may be responsible for some of the nonsignificant associations seen in the study, such as for breast and endometrial cancers, where substantial prior evidence has implicated increased risk through the effects of prolonged exposure to endogenous or exogenous estrogens.

The healthy cohort effect in the UKB is a known weakness of this dataset that may have limited the number of cases and generalizability of findings.

Osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease were self-reported.

The study only included participants of European ancestry because most subjects in most of the cohorts examined were White women and the applied MR instruments were found by genome-wide association studies run predominantly in White women. The authors said the causal effects of ANM need study in more diverse populations.
 

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• None of the authors had disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Genetic evidence for causal relationships between age at natural menopause and the risk of aging-associated adverse health outcomes,” written by authors primarily based at Stanford University School of Medicine i

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

Early initiation of the antiviral oseltamivir (Tamiflu) reduces the risk for death in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) but patients have to be tested for influenza first and that is not happening often enough, a large observational cohort of adult patients indicates.

“Early testing allows for early treatment, and we found that early treatment was associated with reduced mortality so testing patients during the flu season is crucial,” senior author Michael Rothberg, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview.

“Even during the flu season, most patients with CAP in our study went untested for influenza [even though] those who received early oseltamivir exhibited lower 14-day in-hospital case fatality ... suggesting more widespread testing might improve patient outcomes,” the authors added.

The study was published online Feb. 5, 2022, in the journal CHEST.
 

Premier database

Data from the Premier Database – a hospital discharge database with information from over 600 hospitals in the United States – were analyzed between July 2010 and June 2015. Microbiological laboratory data was provided by 179 hospitals. “For each year, we evaluated the total percentage of patients tested for influenza A/B within 3 days of hospitalization,” lead author Abhishek Deshpande, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues explained.

A total of 166,268 patients with CAP were included in the study, among which only about one-quarter were tested for influenza. Some 11.5% tested positive for the flu, the authors noted. Testing did increase from 15.4% in 2010 to 35.6% in 2015 and it was higher at close to 29% during the influenza season, compared with only about 8% during the summer months.

Patients who were tested for influenza were younger at age 66.6 years, compared with untested patients, who were 70 years of age (P < .001). Tested patients were also less likely to have been admitted from a nursing facility (P < .001), were less likely to have been hospitalized in the preceding 6 months (P < .001) and have fewer comorbidities than those who were not tested (P < .001).

“Both groups had similar illness severities on admission,” the authors observed, “but patients who were tested were less likely to die in the hospital within 14 days,” the authors reported – at 6.7% versus 10.9% for untested patients (P < .001).

More than 80% of patients who tested positive for influenza received an antibacterial on day 1 of their admission, compared with virtually all those who were either not tested or who tested negative, the investigators added (P < .001). The mean duration of antibacterial therapy among patients with a bacterial coinfection was not influenced by influenza test results.

However, among those who tested positive for influenza, almost 60% received oseltamivir on day 1 whereas roughly 30% received treatment on day 2 or later. In fact, almost all patients who received early oseltamivir were tested for influenza on day 1, the investigators pointed out. Patients who received early oseltamivir had a 25% lower risk of death within the first 14 days in hospital at an adjusted odds ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.96).

Early initiation of the antiviral also reduced the risk of requiring subsequent ICU care by 36% at an aOR of 0.64; invasive mechanical ventilation by 46% at an aOR of 0.54, and the need for vasopressor therapy by 47% at an aOR of 0.53. All results were within the 95% confidence levels.

Early use of antiviral therapy also reduced both the length of hospital stay and the cost of that stay by 12%.
 

ATS-IDSA guidelines

As Dr. Deshpande noted, the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend testing and empiric treatment of influenza in patients hospitalized with CAP. “Testing more inpatients especially during the flu season can reduce other diagnostic testing and improve antimicrobial stewardship,” Deshpande noted.

Thus, while the rate of testing for influenza did increase over the 5-year study interval, “there is substantial room for improvement,” he added, as a positive test clearly does trigger the need for intervention. As Dr. Deshpande also noted, the past two influenza seasons have been mild, but influenza activity has again picked up lately again in many parts of the United States.

With the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelming influenza over the past few years, “differentiating between the two based on symptoms alone can be challenging,” he acknowledged, “and clinicians will need to test and treat accordingly.” This is particularly important given that this study clearly indicates that early treatment with an antiviral can lower the risk of short-term mortality in hospitalized CAP patients.

One limitation of the study was the lack of data on time of symptom onset, which may be an important confounder of the effect of oseltamivir on outcomes, the authors point out. Asked to comment on the findings, Barbara Jones, MD, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, noted that timely antivirals for patients with influenza are highly effective at mitigating severe disease and are thus strongly recommended by practice guidelines.

“However, it is hard for clinicians to keep influenza on the radar and change testing and treatment approaches according to the season and prevalence [of influenza infections],” she said in an interview. “This is an important study that highlights this challenge.

“We need a better understanding of the solutions that have been effective at improving influenza recognition and treatment, possibly by studying facilities that perform well at this process,” she said.

Dr. Deshpande reported receiving research funding to his institution from the Clorox Company and consultant fees from Merck.

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

Early initiation of the antiviral oseltamivir (Tamiflu) reduces the risk for death in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) but patients have to be tested for influenza first and that is not happening often enough, a large observational cohort of adult patients indicates.

“Early testing allows for early treatment, and we found that early treatment was associated with reduced mortality so testing patients during the flu season is crucial,” senior author Michael Rothberg, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview.

“Even during the flu season, most patients with CAP in our study went untested for influenza [even though] those who received early oseltamivir exhibited lower 14-day in-hospital case fatality ... suggesting more widespread testing might improve patient outcomes,” the authors added.

The study was published online Feb. 5, 2022, in the journal CHEST.
 

Premier database

Data from the Premier Database – a hospital discharge database with information from over 600 hospitals in the United States – were analyzed between July 2010 and June 2015. Microbiological laboratory data was provided by 179 hospitals. “For each year, we evaluated the total percentage of patients tested for influenza A/B within 3 days of hospitalization,” lead author Abhishek Deshpande, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues explained.

A total of 166,268 patients with CAP were included in the study, among which only about one-quarter were tested for influenza. Some 11.5% tested positive for the flu, the authors noted. Testing did increase from 15.4% in 2010 to 35.6% in 2015 and it was higher at close to 29% during the influenza season, compared with only about 8% during the summer months.

Patients who were tested for influenza were younger at age 66.6 years, compared with untested patients, who were 70 years of age (P < .001). Tested patients were also less likely to have been admitted from a nursing facility (P < .001), were less likely to have been hospitalized in the preceding 6 months (P < .001) and have fewer comorbidities than those who were not tested (P < .001).

“Both groups had similar illness severities on admission,” the authors observed, “but patients who were tested were less likely to die in the hospital within 14 days,” the authors reported – at 6.7% versus 10.9% for untested patients (P < .001).

More than 80% of patients who tested positive for influenza received an antibacterial on day 1 of their admission, compared with virtually all those who were either not tested or who tested negative, the investigators added (P < .001). The mean duration of antibacterial therapy among patients with a bacterial coinfection was not influenced by influenza test results.

However, among those who tested positive for influenza, almost 60% received oseltamivir on day 1 whereas roughly 30% received treatment on day 2 or later. In fact, almost all patients who received early oseltamivir were tested for influenza on day 1, the investigators pointed out. Patients who received early oseltamivir had a 25% lower risk of death within the first 14 days in hospital at an adjusted odds ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.96).

Early initiation of the antiviral also reduced the risk of requiring subsequent ICU care by 36% at an aOR of 0.64; invasive mechanical ventilation by 46% at an aOR of 0.54, and the need for vasopressor therapy by 47% at an aOR of 0.53. All results were within the 95% confidence levels.

Early use of antiviral therapy also reduced both the length of hospital stay and the cost of that stay by 12%.
 

ATS-IDSA guidelines

As Dr. Deshpande noted, the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend testing and empiric treatment of influenza in patients hospitalized with CAP. “Testing more inpatients especially during the flu season can reduce other diagnostic testing and improve antimicrobial stewardship,” Deshpande noted.

Thus, while the rate of testing for influenza did increase over the 5-year study interval, “there is substantial room for improvement,” he added, as a positive test clearly does trigger the need for intervention. As Dr. Deshpande also noted, the past two influenza seasons have been mild, but influenza activity has again picked up lately again in many parts of the United States.

With the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelming influenza over the past few years, “differentiating between the two based on symptoms alone can be challenging,” he acknowledged, “and clinicians will need to test and treat accordingly.” This is particularly important given that this study clearly indicates that early treatment with an antiviral can lower the risk of short-term mortality in hospitalized CAP patients.

One limitation of the study was the lack of data on time of symptom onset, which may be an important confounder of the effect of oseltamivir on outcomes, the authors point out. Asked to comment on the findings, Barbara Jones, MD, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, noted that timely antivirals for patients with influenza are highly effective at mitigating severe disease and are thus strongly recommended by practice guidelines.

“However, it is hard for clinicians to keep influenza on the radar and change testing and treatment approaches according to the season and prevalence [of influenza infections],” she said in an interview. “This is an important study that highlights this challenge.

“We need a better understanding of the solutions that have been effective at improving influenza recognition and treatment, possibly by studying facilities that perform well at this process,” she said.

Dr. Deshpande reported receiving research funding to his institution from the Clorox Company and consultant fees from Merck.

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

Early initiation of the antiviral oseltamivir (Tamiflu) reduces the risk for death in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) but patients have to be tested for influenza first and that is not happening often enough, a large observational cohort of adult patients indicates.

“Early testing allows for early treatment, and we found that early treatment was associated with reduced mortality so testing patients during the flu season is crucial,” senior author Michael Rothberg, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview.

“Even during the flu season, most patients with CAP in our study went untested for influenza [even though] those who received early oseltamivir exhibited lower 14-day in-hospital case fatality ... suggesting more widespread testing might improve patient outcomes,” the authors added.

The study was published online Feb. 5, 2022, in the journal CHEST.
 

Premier database

Data from the Premier Database – a hospital discharge database with information from over 600 hospitals in the United States – were analyzed between July 2010 and June 2015. Microbiological laboratory data was provided by 179 hospitals. “For each year, we evaluated the total percentage of patients tested for influenza A/B within 3 days of hospitalization,” lead author Abhishek Deshpande, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues explained.

A total of 166,268 patients with CAP were included in the study, among which only about one-quarter were tested for influenza. Some 11.5% tested positive for the flu, the authors noted. Testing did increase from 15.4% in 2010 to 35.6% in 2015 and it was higher at close to 29% during the influenza season, compared with only about 8% during the summer months.

Patients who were tested for influenza were younger at age 66.6 years, compared with untested patients, who were 70 years of age (P < .001). Tested patients were also less likely to have been admitted from a nursing facility (P < .001), were less likely to have been hospitalized in the preceding 6 months (P < .001) and have fewer comorbidities than those who were not tested (P < .001).

“Both groups had similar illness severities on admission,” the authors observed, “but patients who were tested were less likely to die in the hospital within 14 days,” the authors reported – at 6.7% versus 10.9% for untested patients (P < .001).

More than 80% of patients who tested positive for influenza received an antibacterial on day 1 of their admission, compared with virtually all those who were either not tested or who tested negative, the investigators added (P < .001). The mean duration of antibacterial therapy among patients with a bacterial coinfection was not influenced by influenza test results.

However, among those who tested positive for influenza, almost 60% received oseltamivir on day 1 whereas roughly 30% received treatment on day 2 or later. In fact, almost all patients who received early oseltamivir were tested for influenza on day 1, the investigators pointed out. Patients who received early oseltamivir had a 25% lower risk of death within the first 14 days in hospital at an adjusted odds ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.96).

Early initiation of the antiviral also reduced the risk of requiring subsequent ICU care by 36% at an aOR of 0.64; invasive mechanical ventilation by 46% at an aOR of 0.54, and the need for vasopressor therapy by 47% at an aOR of 0.53. All results were within the 95% confidence levels.

Early use of antiviral therapy also reduced both the length of hospital stay and the cost of that stay by 12%.
 

ATS-IDSA guidelines

As Dr. Deshpande noted, the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend testing and empiric treatment of influenza in patients hospitalized with CAP. “Testing more inpatients especially during the flu season can reduce other diagnostic testing and improve antimicrobial stewardship,” Deshpande noted.

Thus, while the rate of testing for influenza did increase over the 5-year study interval, “there is substantial room for improvement,” he added, as a positive test clearly does trigger the need for intervention. As Dr. Deshpande also noted, the past two influenza seasons have been mild, but influenza activity has again picked up lately again in many parts of the United States.

With the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelming influenza over the past few years, “differentiating between the two based on symptoms alone can be challenging,” he acknowledged, “and clinicians will need to test and treat accordingly.” This is particularly important given that this study clearly indicates that early treatment with an antiviral can lower the risk of short-term mortality in hospitalized CAP patients.

One limitation of the study was the lack of data on time of symptom onset, which may be an important confounder of the effect of oseltamivir on outcomes, the authors point out. Asked to comment on the findings, Barbara Jones, MD, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, noted that timely antivirals for patients with influenza are highly effective at mitigating severe disease and are thus strongly recommended by practice guidelines.

“However, it is hard for clinicians to keep influenza on the radar and change testing and treatment approaches according to the season and prevalence [of influenza infections],” she said in an interview. “This is an important study that highlights this challenge.

“We need a better understanding of the solutions that have been effective at improving influenza recognition and treatment, possibly by studying facilities that perform well at this process,” she said.

Dr. Deshpande reported receiving research funding to his institution from the Clorox Company and consultant fees from Merck.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand eligibility guidelines for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for Medicare recipients.

According to the final decision, announced February 10, CMS will lower the age for screening from 55 to 50 years up to 77 years and reduce criteria for tobacco smoking history from at least 30 pack-years to 20 pack-years. The expanded Medicare recommendation will address racial disparities associated with lung cancer, given evidence that one third of Black patients are diagnosed with lung cancer before age 55.

The updated CMS guidelines align closely with recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in March 2021. The USPSTF expanded its guidelines for screening to include individuals ages 50 to 80 years, as well as those who have a 20–pack-year smoking history and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Overall, the expanded guidelines will nearly double the number of individuals who are eligible for screening and have the potential to save significantly more lives by identifying cancers at an earlier, more treatable stage.

“Expanding coverage broadens access for lung cancer screening to at-risk populations,” said Lee Felisher, MD, CMS chief medical officer and director of the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, in a statement. “Today’s decision not only expands access to quality care but is also critical to improving health outcomes for people by helping to detect lung cancer earlier.”

CMS’s decision also simplifies requirements for counseling and shared decision-making visits and removes an initial requirement for the reading radiologist to document participation in continuing medical education, which will reduce administrative burden. CMS also added a requirement back to the National Coverage Determination criteria that requires radiology imaging facilities to use a standardized lung nodule identification, classification, and reporting system.

The American Lung Association applauds the decision to update eligibility.

“[The] announcement from CMS will give more people enrolled in Medicare access to lifesaving lung cancer screening. Screening for individuals at high risk is the only tool to catch this disease early when it is more curable,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, only 5.7% of people who are eligible have been screened, so it’s important that we talk with our friends and family who are at high risk about getting screened.”

While access to screening will significantly increase, the American Lung Association recommends CMS go a step further and expand eligibility to individuals up to 80 years of age, as the USPSTF recommendations do, as well as remove the recommendation that individuals cease screening once they have stopped smoking for 15 years.

Given the new guidelines, most private insurance plans will need to update screening coverage policies to reflect the updated guidelines for plan years beginning after March 31.

To read the final decision, visit the CMS website.

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

Use of positive airway pressure (PAP) devices for treatment of sleep apnea was first described in 1981. Subsequent use of PAP devices expanded to treat patients with respiratory failure. While the treatment in this population has rapidly gained widespread use and undoubtedly has reduced morbidity and mortality in these populations, policies governing these prescriptions have not really kept up with the burgeoning need.

In 2020, Drs. Peter Gay and Robert Owens brought together a technical expert panel (TEP) to systematically review the CMS policies with an eye to remove “regulatory barriers” to improve access for these patients with the mantra: “the right device gets to the right patient at the right time.”

The panel focused on “Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion (ONMAP),” and members with specific expertise were recruited for five patient groups: Thoracic Restrictive Disorders (TRD), COPD, Central Sleep Apnea (CSA), Hypoventilation Syndromes (HVS), and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). Each group reviewed the current coverage, outlined the deficiencies, and suggested revisions. Herein, I will briefly highlight each group’s most important points.
 

TRD: The goal for this group was to bring the US standards of care closer to the rest of the world. This group advocates that the start of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) should be substantially earlier, to provide the largest improvement in disease outcome and stability. Other prominent features submitted included arterial blood gases (ABG) to not be the only form of CO₂ measurement allowed; paying for a second device if patients are using NIV continuously; qualification for a BiPAP to include if vital capacity is ≤ 80%; and, to obtain a home mechanical ventilator, a patient must either fail BiPAP or have extreme loss of function, high pressure requirements, or need mouthpiece ventilation.

CSA: The big challenges with this diagnosis related to qualifying coverage language in the current policies, which are confusing for many providers. Additionally, these policies often deny certain PAP devices and/or oxygen therapy. The group proposed: a single definition of CSA; eliminate discussion of hypoventilation; mirror qualifying symptoms, and, continuing coverage, to the same as that for OSA treatment; and remove need for a prior failure of BiPAP without a backup rate (BUR). The group also had specific recommendations for when oxygen therapy should be covered in patients with CSA.

COPD: This group also focused on the oxygen therapy and promoting use of devices with a BUR. Two problematic areas included the requirement that nocturnal oxygen saturation must drop to ≤ 88% for at least 5 cumulative minutes, and, that patients must begin with an S mode device (no BUR) for at least 2 months and can only then be prescribed a device with a BUR if CO₂ fails to drop. The group advocates for the removal of both, the need for a nocturnal oximetry test, and, to “try” an S mode device. The panel advocated giving the prescribing physician discretion in making this determination. The panel also provided recommendations on when a home mechanical ventilator (HMV) should be considered instead of BiPAP therapy.

HVS: Hypoventilation syndromes are a heterogeneous group of disorders with hypercapnia, defined as a Paco₂ ≥45 mm Hg. This panel noted that the current coverage criteria are outdated and fail to recognize the spectrum of disease severity and advances in technology, which often leads to circumvention by prescribing more costly home mechanical ventilators (HMV). Consistent with the TRD group, this panel recommended acceptance of surrogate noninvasive end tidal and transcutaneous Pco₂ and venous blood gases in lieu of arterial blood gases. Additionally, they suggested no longer requiring CO₂ measures while using prescribed oxygen; eliminating the need for a sleep study to avoid delays in care for patients being discharged from the hospital; removing spirometry as a requirement; and no longer a failure of BiPAP without a BUR.

OSA: The initial purpose of examining OSA in this process was to examine when BiPAP should be utilized for treatment; however, it necessitated examination of the entire policy for PAP. The areas that were identified as needing revision included: expansion of the symptom list for patients with OSA; revising the “4 hour rule,” suggesting that 2 hours has been proven to provide benefit; eliminating the need for another sleep study to re-qualify for PAP or supplemental oxygen; and embracing telehealth as a way to improve accessibility for follow-up visits.

For details, please review the papers published in the November 2021 issue of the journal CHEST^® (2021; 160[5]:1579-1990, e377-e543).

We now await what CMS will do with our recommendations and work for “the right device to the right patient at the right time.”

Acknowledgment: Drs. Gerald Criner, Nicholas Hill, Babak Mohklesi, Timothy Morgenthaler, and Lisa Wolfe assisted with the content.

Use of positive airway pressure (PAP) devices for treatment of sleep apnea was first described in 1981. Subsequent use of PAP devices expanded to treat patients with respiratory failure. While the treatment in this population has rapidly gained widespread use and undoubtedly has reduced morbidity and mortality in these populations, policies governing these prescriptions have not really kept up with the burgeoning need.

In 2020, Drs. Peter Gay and Robert Owens brought together a technical expert panel (TEP) to systematically review the CMS policies with an eye to remove “regulatory barriers” to improve access for these patients with the mantra: “the right device gets to the right patient at the right time.”

The panel focused on “Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion (ONMAP),” and members with specific expertise were recruited for five patient groups: Thoracic Restrictive Disorders (TRD), COPD, Central Sleep Apnea (CSA), Hypoventilation Syndromes (HVS), and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). Each group reviewed the current coverage, outlined the deficiencies, and suggested revisions. Herein, I will briefly highlight each group’s most important points.
 

TRD: The goal for this group was to bring the US standards of care closer to the rest of the world. This group advocates that the start of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) should be substantially earlier, to provide the largest improvement in disease outcome and stability. Other prominent features submitted included arterial blood gases (ABG) to not be the only form of CO₂ measurement allowed; paying for a second device if patients are using NIV continuously; qualification for a BiPAP to include if vital capacity is ≤ 80%; and, to obtain a home mechanical ventilator, a patient must either fail BiPAP or have extreme loss of function, high pressure requirements, or need mouthpiece ventilation.

CSA: The big challenges with this diagnosis related to qualifying coverage language in the current policies, which are confusing for many providers. Additionally, these policies often deny certain PAP devices and/or oxygen therapy. The group proposed: a single definition of CSA; eliminate discussion of hypoventilation; mirror qualifying symptoms, and, continuing coverage, to the same as that for OSA treatment; and remove need for a prior failure of BiPAP without a backup rate (BUR). The group also had specific recommendations for when oxygen therapy should be covered in patients with CSA.

COPD: This group also focused on the oxygen therapy and promoting use of devices with a BUR. Two problematic areas included the requirement that nocturnal oxygen saturation must drop to ≤ 88% for at least 5 cumulative minutes, and, that patients must begin with an S mode device (no BUR) for at least 2 months and can only then be prescribed a device with a BUR if CO₂ fails to drop. The group advocates for the removal of both, the need for a nocturnal oximetry test, and, to “try” an S mode device. The panel advocated giving the prescribing physician discretion in making this determination. The panel also provided recommendations on when a home mechanical ventilator (HMV) should be considered instead of BiPAP therapy.

HVS: Hypoventilation syndromes are a heterogeneous group of disorders with hypercapnia, defined as a Paco₂ ≥45 mm Hg. This panel noted that the current coverage criteria are outdated and fail to recognize the spectrum of disease severity and advances in technology, which often leads to circumvention by prescribing more costly home mechanical ventilators (HMV). Consistent with the TRD group, this panel recommended acceptance of surrogate noninvasive end tidal and transcutaneous Pco₂ and venous blood gases in lieu of arterial blood gases. Additionally, they suggested no longer requiring CO₂ measures while using prescribed oxygen; eliminating the need for a sleep study to avoid delays in care for patients being discharged from the hospital; removing spirometry as a requirement; and no longer a failure of BiPAP without a BUR.

OSA: The initial purpose of examining OSA in this process was to examine when BiPAP should be utilized for treatment; however, it necessitated examination of the entire policy for PAP. The areas that were identified as needing revision included: expansion of the symptom list for patients with OSA; revising the “4 hour rule,” suggesting that 2 hours has been proven to provide benefit; eliminating the need for another sleep study to re-qualify for PAP or supplemental oxygen; and embracing telehealth as a way to improve accessibility for follow-up visits.

For details, please review the papers published in the November 2021 issue of the journal CHEST^® (2021; 160[5]:1579-1990, e377-e543).

We now await what CMS will do with our recommendations and work for “the right device to the right patient at the right time.”

Acknowledgment: Drs. Gerald Criner, Nicholas Hill, Babak Mohklesi, Timothy Morgenthaler, and Lisa Wolfe assisted with the content.

Use of positive airway pressure (PAP) devices for treatment of sleep apnea was first described in 1981. Subsequent use of PAP devices expanded to treat patients with respiratory failure. While the treatment in this population has rapidly gained widespread use and undoubtedly has reduced morbidity and mortality in these populations, policies governing these prescriptions have not really kept up with the burgeoning need.

In 2020, Drs. Peter Gay and Robert Owens brought together a technical expert panel (TEP) to systematically review the CMS policies with an eye to remove “regulatory barriers” to improve access for these patients with the mantra: “the right device gets to the right patient at the right time.”

The panel focused on “Optimal NIV Medicare Access Promotion (ONMAP),” and members with specific expertise were recruited for five patient groups: Thoracic Restrictive Disorders (TRD), COPD, Central Sleep Apnea (CSA), Hypoventilation Syndromes (HVS), and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). Each group reviewed the current coverage, outlined the deficiencies, and suggested revisions. Herein, I will briefly highlight each group’s most important points.
 

TRD: The goal for this group was to bring the US standards of care closer to the rest of the world. This group advocates that the start of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) should be substantially earlier, to provide the largest improvement in disease outcome and stability. Other prominent features submitted included arterial blood gases (ABG) to not be the only form of CO₂ measurement allowed; paying for a second device if patients are using NIV continuously; qualification for a BiPAP to include if vital capacity is ≤ 80%; and, to obtain a home mechanical ventilator, a patient must either fail BiPAP or have extreme loss of function, high pressure requirements, or need mouthpiece ventilation.

CSA: The big challenges with this diagnosis related to qualifying coverage language in the current policies, which are confusing for many providers. Additionally, these policies often deny certain PAP devices and/or oxygen therapy. The group proposed: a single definition of CSA; eliminate discussion of hypoventilation; mirror qualifying symptoms, and, continuing coverage, to the same as that for OSA treatment; and remove need for a prior failure of BiPAP without a backup rate (BUR). The group also had specific recommendations for when oxygen therapy should be covered in patients with CSA.

COPD: This group also focused on the oxygen therapy and promoting use of devices with a BUR. Two problematic areas included the requirement that nocturnal oxygen saturation must drop to ≤ 88% for at least 5 cumulative minutes, and, that patients must begin with an S mode device (no BUR) for at least 2 months and can only then be prescribed a device with a BUR if CO₂ fails to drop. The group advocates for the removal of both, the need for a nocturnal oximetry test, and, to “try” an S mode device. The panel advocated giving the prescribing physician discretion in making this determination. The panel also provided recommendations on when a home mechanical ventilator (HMV) should be considered instead of BiPAP therapy.

HVS: Hypoventilation syndromes are a heterogeneous group of disorders with hypercapnia, defined as a Paco₂ ≥45 mm Hg. This panel noted that the current coverage criteria are outdated and fail to recognize the spectrum of disease severity and advances in technology, which often leads to circumvention by prescribing more costly home mechanical ventilators (HMV). Consistent with the TRD group, this panel recommended acceptance of surrogate noninvasive end tidal and transcutaneous Pco₂ and venous blood gases in lieu of arterial blood gases. Additionally, they suggested no longer requiring CO₂ measures while using prescribed oxygen; eliminating the need for a sleep study to avoid delays in care for patients being discharged from the hospital; removing spirometry as a requirement; and no longer a failure of BiPAP without a BUR.

OSA: The initial purpose of examining OSA in this process was to examine when BiPAP should be utilized for treatment; however, it necessitated examination of the entire policy for PAP. The areas that were identified as needing revision included: expansion of the symptom list for patients with OSA; revising the “4 hour rule,” suggesting that 2 hours has been proven to provide benefit; eliminating the need for another sleep study to re-qualify for PAP or supplemental oxygen; and embracing telehealth as a way to improve accessibility for follow-up visits.

For details, please review the papers published in the November 2021 issue of the journal CHEST^® (2021; 160[5]:1579-1990, e377-e543).

We now await what CMS will do with our recommendations and work for “the right device to the right patient at the right time.”

Acknowledgment: Drs. Gerald Criner, Nicholas Hill, Babak Mohklesi, Timothy Morgenthaler, and Lisa Wolfe assisted with the content.

Since the onset of the pandemic, the role for corticosteroids (CS) as a therapy for COVID-19 has evolved. Initially, there was reluctance to use oral corticosteroids (OCS) outside of COVID-19-related sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This was in keeping with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines (Metlay JP, et al.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 200:e45-e67) and reflected concerns that OCS might worsen outcomes in viral pneumonias. At my hospital, the reluctance to use OCS was extended to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with early protocols advising cessation in patients with COVID-19.

In fairness, the hesitation to use ICS was short-lived and reflected attempts to provide reasonable guidance during the early pandemic data vacuum. Over time, OCS therapy has gained acceptance as a treatment for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. On top of this, the relationship between COVID-19 and asthma has proved to be complicated. It seemed intuitive that asthmatics would fair worse in the face of a highly transmissible respiratory pathogen. Data on COVID-19 and asthma provide a mixed picture, though. It also appears that the interaction varies by phenotype (Zhu Z, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:327-329).

Improvements with OCS and the complicated interaction between COVID-19 and asthma led some to speculate that ICS, the primary treatment for asthma, may actually be protective. There is biologic plausibility to support this concept. Generally, we’ve seen a variety of immunomodulators show efficacy against moderate or severe disease. Specific to ICS, data have shown a down-regulation in COVID-19 gene expression and reduction in proteins required by the virus for cell entry. This includes a reduction in the evil, much maligned ACE-2 receptor (Peters M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202:83-90).

Like much with COVID-19, the initial asthma phenotype and ICS data were observational and hypothesis- generating, at best. More recently, a series of randomized trials has tested the effects of ICS in patients with milder forms of COVID-19. The data are promising and are worth a thorough review by all physicians caring for COVID-19 outside of the hospital.

The STOIC trial (Ramakrishnan S, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:763–772) randomized 146 patients to budesonide via dry powder inhaler (DPI), 800 ug twice per day (BID), versus usual care. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, defined as presentation to acute or emergency care or need for hospitalization. There was a number of secondary outcomes designed to assess time-to-recovery, predominantly by self-report via questionnaires. The results were nothing short of spectacular. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome with a number-needed to treat (NNT) of only 8 to prevent one instance of COVID-19 deterioration. A number of the secondary outcomes reached significance, as well.

The PRINCIPLE trial, only available in preprint form (https://tinyurl.com/mr4cah7j), also randomized patients to budesonide via ICS vs usual care. PRINCIPLE is one of those cool, adaptive platform trials designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously that have gained popularity in the pandemic era. These trials include predefined criteria for success and futility that allow treatments to be added and others to be dropped. The dosage of budesonide was identical to that in STOIC, and, again, it was delivered via DPI. By design, patients were older with co-morbidities, and there were two primary outcomes. The first was a composite of hospitalization and death, and the second was time to recovery.

The PRINCIPLE preprint is only an interim analysis. There were 751 and 1,028 patients who received budesonide and usual care, respectively. Time to recovery was significantly shorter in the budesonide group, but budesonide failed to meet their prespecified criteria for reducing hospitalization/death. The authors noted that the composite outcome of hospitalization or death did not occur at the rates originally anticipated, presumably due to high vaccination rates. This may have led to type II error.

In a third trial published online in November (Clemency BM, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6759), patients were randomized to 640 micrograms per day of the ICS ciclesonide. Delivery was via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for a total duration of 30 days. Unlike the STOIC and PRINCIPLE trials, this one wasn’t open label. It was blinded and placebo-controlled. The investigators found no difference in their primary outcome, time to resolution of symptoms. Ciclesonide did reduce the composite secondary outcome of ED visits or hospital admissions. The number needed to treat was 23.

Please indulge me while I overreact. It seems we’ve got a positive signal in all three. In the era of the Omnicron variant and limited health resources, a widely available therapy that curtails symptoms and prevents acute care visits and hospitalizations could have a tremendous impact. It doesn’t require administration in a clinic and, in theory, efficacy shouldn’t be affected by future mutations of the virus.

A more sober look mutes my enthusiasm. First, as the authors of the ciclesonide article note, open-label trials tracking subjective outcomes via self-assessment can be prone to bias. The ciclesonide trial was double-blinded and didn’t find a difference in time to symptom resolution, only the two open-label trials did. Second, the largest study (PRINCIPLE) didn’t show a difference in escalation of care.

Given, they defined “escalation” as hospitalization or death, and vaccines and patient selection (enrolled only outpatients with mild disease) made proving a statistical reduction difficult. However, in the text they state there wasn’t an improvement in “health care services use” either. In essence, the largest trial showed no change in escalation of care, and the trial with the best design did not show reduction in symptoms.

Although three randomized trials are enough for the inevitable meta-analysis that’ll be published soon; don’t expect it to shed much light. Combining data won’t be particularly helpful because the PRINCIPLE trial is larger than the other two combined, so its results will dominate any statistical analysis of combined data. Not to worry though – there are several more ICS COVID-19 trials underway (NCT04355637, NCT04331054, NCT04193878, NCT04330586, NCT04331054, NCT04331470, NCT04355637, NCT04356495, and NCT04381364). Providers will have to decide for themselves whether what we have so far is sufficient to change practice.

Dr. Holley is Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship; and Associate Professor of Medicine USU, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He also serves as Section Editor for Pulmonary Perspectives^®.

Since the onset of the pandemic, the role for corticosteroids (CS) as a therapy for COVID-19 has evolved. Initially, there was reluctance to use oral corticosteroids (OCS) outside of COVID-19-related sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This was in keeping with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines (Metlay JP, et al.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 200:e45-e67) and reflected concerns that OCS might worsen outcomes in viral pneumonias. At my hospital, the reluctance to use OCS was extended to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with early protocols advising cessation in patients with COVID-19.

In fairness, the hesitation to use ICS was short-lived and reflected attempts to provide reasonable guidance during the early pandemic data vacuum. Over time, OCS therapy has gained acceptance as a treatment for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. On top of this, the relationship between COVID-19 and asthma has proved to be complicated. It seemed intuitive that asthmatics would fair worse in the face of a highly transmissible respiratory pathogen. Data on COVID-19 and asthma provide a mixed picture, though. It also appears that the interaction varies by phenotype (Zhu Z, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:327-329).

Improvements with OCS and the complicated interaction between COVID-19 and asthma led some to speculate that ICS, the primary treatment for asthma, may actually be protective. There is biologic plausibility to support this concept. Generally, we’ve seen a variety of immunomodulators show efficacy against moderate or severe disease. Specific to ICS, data have shown a down-regulation in COVID-19 gene expression and reduction in proteins required by the virus for cell entry. This includes a reduction in the evil, much maligned ACE-2 receptor (Peters M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202:83-90).

Like much with COVID-19, the initial asthma phenotype and ICS data were observational and hypothesis- generating, at best. More recently, a series of randomized trials has tested the effects of ICS in patients with milder forms of COVID-19. The data are promising and are worth a thorough review by all physicians caring for COVID-19 outside of the hospital.

The STOIC trial (Ramakrishnan S, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:763–772) randomized 146 patients to budesonide via dry powder inhaler (DPI), 800 ug twice per day (BID), versus usual care. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, defined as presentation to acute or emergency care or need for hospitalization. There was a number of secondary outcomes designed to assess time-to-recovery, predominantly by self-report via questionnaires. The results were nothing short of spectacular. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome with a number-needed to treat (NNT) of only 8 to prevent one instance of COVID-19 deterioration. A number of the secondary outcomes reached significance, as well.

The PRINCIPLE trial, only available in preprint form (https://tinyurl.com/mr4cah7j), also randomized patients to budesonide via ICS vs usual care. PRINCIPLE is one of those cool, adaptive platform trials designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously that have gained popularity in the pandemic era. These trials include predefined criteria for success and futility that allow treatments to be added and others to be dropped. The dosage of budesonide was identical to that in STOIC, and, again, it was delivered via DPI. By design, patients were older with co-morbidities, and there were two primary outcomes. The first was a composite of hospitalization and death, and the second was time to recovery.

The PRINCIPLE preprint is only an interim analysis. There were 751 and 1,028 patients who received budesonide and usual care, respectively. Time to recovery was significantly shorter in the budesonide group, but budesonide failed to meet their prespecified criteria for reducing hospitalization/death. The authors noted that the composite outcome of hospitalization or death did not occur at the rates originally anticipated, presumably due to high vaccination rates. This may have led to type II error.

In a third trial published online in November (Clemency BM, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6759), patients were randomized to 640 micrograms per day of the ICS ciclesonide. Delivery was via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for a total duration of 30 days. Unlike the STOIC and PRINCIPLE trials, this one wasn’t open label. It was blinded and placebo-controlled. The investigators found no difference in their primary outcome, time to resolution of symptoms. Ciclesonide did reduce the composite secondary outcome of ED visits or hospital admissions. The number needed to treat was 23.

Please indulge me while I overreact. It seems we’ve got a positive signal in all three. In the era of the Omnicron variant and limited health resources, a widely available therapy that curtails symptoms and prevents acute care visits and hospitalizations could have a tremendous impact. It doesn’t require administration in a clinic and, in theory, efficacy shouldn’t be affected by future mutations of the virus.

A more sober look mutes my enthusiasm. First, as the authors of the ciclesonide article note, open-label trials tracking subjective outcomes via self-assessment can be prone to bias. The ciclesonide trial was double-blinded and didn’t find a difference in time to symptom resolution, only the two open-label trials did. Second, the largest study (PRINCIPLE) didn’t show a difference in escalation of care.

Given, they defined “escalation” as hospitalization or death, and vaccines and patient selection (enrolled only outpatients with mild disease) made proving a statistical reduction difficult. However, in the text they state there wasn’t an improvement in “health care services use” either. In essence, the largest trial showed no change in escalation of care, and the trial with the best design did not show reduction in symptoms.

Although three randomized trials are enough for the inevitable meta-analysis that’ll be published soon; don’t expect it to shed much light. Combining data won’t be particularly helpful because the PRINCIPLE trial is larger than the other two combined, so its results will dominate any statistical analysis of combined data. Not to worry though – there are several more ICS COVID-19 trials underway (NCT04355637, NCT04331054, NCT04193878, NCT04330586, NCT04331054, NCT04331470, NCT04355637, NCT04356495, and NCT04381364). Providers will have to decide for themselves whether what we have so far is sufficient to change practice.

Dr. Holley is Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship; and Associate Professor of Medicine USU, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He also serves as Section Editor for Pulmonary Perspectives^®.

Since the onset of the pandemic, the role for corticosteroids (CS) as a therapy for COVID-19 has evolved. Initially, there was reluctance to use oral corticosteroids (OCS) outside of COVID-19-related sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This was in keeping with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guidelines (Metlay JP, et al.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019; 200:e45-e67) and reflected concerns that OCS might worsen outcomes in viral pneumonias. At my hospital, the reluctance to use OCS was extended to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with early protocols advising cessation in patients with COVID-19.

In fairness, the hesitation to use ICS was short-lived and reflected attempts to provide reasonable guidance during the early pandemic data vacuum. Over time, OCS therapy has gained acceptance as a treatment for moderate-to-severe COVID-19. On top of this, the relationship between COVID-19 and asthma has proved to be complicated. It seemed intuitive that asthmatics would fair worse in the face of a highly transmissible respiratory pathogen. Data on COVID-19 and asthma provide a mixed picture, though. It also appears that the interaction varies by phenotype (Zhu Z, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:327-329).

Improvements with OCS and the complicated interaction between COVID-19 and asthma led some to speculate that ICS, the primary treatment for asthma, may actually be protective. There is biologic plausibility to support this concept. Generally, we’ve seen a variety of immunomodulators show efficacy against moderate or severe disease. Specific to ICS, data have shown a down-regulation in COVID-19 gene expression and reduction in proteins required by the virus for cell entry. This includes a reduction in the evil, much maligned ACE-2 receptor (Peters M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202:83-90).

Like much with COVID-19, the initial asthma phenotype and ICS data were observational and hypothesis- generating, at best. More recently, a series of randomized trials has tested the effects of ICS in patients with milder forms of COVID-19. The data are promising and are worth a thorough review by all physicians caring for COVID-19 outside of the hospital.

The STOIC trial (Ramakrishnan S, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:763–772) randomized 146 patients to budesonide via dry powder inhaler (DPI), 800 ug twice per day (BID), versus usual care. The primary outcome was clinical deterioration, defined as presentation to acute or emergency care or need for hospitalization. There was a number of secondary outcomes designed to assess time-to-recovery, predominantly by self-report via questionnaires. The results were nothing short of spectacular. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome with a number-needed to treat (NNT) of only 8 to prevent one instance of COVID-19 deterioration. A number of the secondary outcomes reached significance, as well.

The PRINCIPLE trial, only available in preprint form (https://tinyurl.com/mr4cah7j), also randomized patients to budesonide via ICS vs usual care. PRINCIPLE is one of those cool, adaptive platform trials designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously that have gained popularity in the pandemic era. These trials include predefined criteria for success and futility that allow treatments to be added and others to be dropped. The dosage of budesonide was identical to that in STOIC, and, again, it was delivered via DPI. By design, patients were older with co-morbidities, and there were two primary outcomes. The first was a composite of hospitalization and death, and the second was time to recovery.

The PRINCIPLE preprint is only an interim analysis. There were 751 and 1,028 patients who received budesonide and usual care, respectively. Time to recovery was significantly shorter in the budesonide group, but budesonide failed to meet their prespecified criteria for reducing hospitalization/death. The authors noted that the composite outcome of hospitalization or death did not occur at the rates originally anticipated, presumably due to high vaccination rates. This may have led to type II error.

In a third trial published online in November (Clemency BM, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.6759), patients were randomized to 640 micrograms per day of the ICS ciclesonide. Delivery was via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for a total duration of 30 days. Unlike the STOIC and PRINCIPLE trials, this one wasn’t open label. It was blinded and placebo-controlled. The investigators found no difference in their primary outcome, time to resolution of symptoms. Ciclesonide did reduce the composite secondary outcome of ED visits or hospital admissions. The number needed to treat was 23.

Please indulge me while I overreact. It seems we’ve got a positive signal in all three. In the era of the Omnicron variant and limited health resources, a widely available therapy that curtails symptoms and prevents acute care visits and hospitalizations could have a tremendous impact. It doesn’t require administration in a clinic and, in theory, efficacy shouldn’t be affected by future mutations of the virus.

A more sober look mutes my enthusiasm. First, as the authors of the ciclesonide article note, open-label trials tracking subjective outcomes via self-assessment can be prone to bias. The ciclesonide trial was double-blinded and didn’t find a difference in time to symptom resolution, only the two open-label trials did. Second, the largest study (PRINCIPLE) didn’t show a difference in escalation of care.

Given, they defined “escalation” as hospitalization or death, and vaccines and patient selection (enrolled only outpatients with mild disease) made proving a statistical reduction difficult. However, in the text they state there wasn’t an improvement in “health care services use” either. In essence, the largest trial showed no change in escalation of care, and the trial with the best design did not show reduction in symptoms.

Although three randomized trials are enough for the inevitable meta-analysis that’ll be published soon; don’t expect it to shed much light. Combining data won’t be particularly helpful because the PRINCIPLE trial is larger than the other two combined, so its results will dominate any statistical analysis of combined data. Not to worry though – there are several more ICS COVID-19 trials underway (NCT04355637, NCT04331054, NCT04193878, NCT04330586, NCT04331054, NCT04331470, NCT04355637, NCT04356495, and NCT04381364). Providers will have to decide for themselves whether what we have so far is sufficient to change practice.

Dr. Holley is Program Director, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship; and Associate Professor of Medicine USU, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. He also serves as Section Editor for Pulmonary Perspectives^®.