Pulmonology

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

Pfizer is suspending distribution of the antismoking treatment Chantix after heightened levels of the carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were found in some lots of the pills.

The pharmaceutical company is also recalling some lots of Chantix that may have high levels of NDMA, Reuters reported.

Pfizer told Reuters the distribution pause was ordered out of abundance of caution while further testing is conducted. The FDA approved varenicline, which is marketed as Chantix, in 2006.

“The benefits of Chantix outweigh the very low potential risks, if any, posed by nitrosamine exposure from varenicline on top of other common sources over a lifetime,” Pfizer spokesperson Steven Danehy said in an email, according to Reuters.

The FDA has not issued a recall on Chantix. In Canada, however, health authorities on June 8 instituted a recall for Champix, the name under which the drug is sold in that nation.

The Chantix website says it’s a 3- to 6-month treatment that helps people overcome the need to smoke tobacco. The website says more than 13 million people have been prescribed Chantix.

Other health concerns have been raised about Chantix, such as mental health side effects.

In 2016, however, researchers concluded Chantix did not appear to raise the risk of serious health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts.

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

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

As doctors struggled through several surges of COVID-19 infections, most of what we learned was acquired through real-life experience. While many treatment options were promoted, most flat-out failed to be real therapeutics at all. Now that we have a safe and effective vaccine, we can prevent many infections from this virus. However, we are still left to manage the many post-COVID symptoms our patients continue to suffer with.

Symptoms following infection can last for months and range widely from “brain fog,” fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain, generalized weakness, depression, and a host of others. Patients may experience one or all of these symptoms, and there is currently no good way to predict who will go on to become a COVID “long hauler”.

Following the example of being educated by COVID as it happened, the same is true for managing post-COVID symptoms. The medical community still has a poor understanding of why some people develop it and there are few evidence-based studies to support any treatment modalities.

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a set of clinical guidelines addressing treatment of post-COVID symptoms, which they define as “new, recurring, or ongoing symptoms more than 4 weeks after infection, sometimes after initial symptom recovery.” It is important to note that these symptoms can occur in any degree of sickness during the acute infection, including in those who were asymptomatic. Even the actual name of this post-COVID syndrome is still being developed, with several other names being used for it as well.

While the guidelines are quite extensive, the actual clinical recommendations are still vague. For example, it is advised to let the patient know that post-COVID symptoms are still not well understood. While it is important to be transparent with patients, this does little to reassure them. Patients look to doctors, especially their primary care physicians, to guide them on the best treatment paths. Yet, we currently have none for post-COVID syndrome.

It is also advised to treat the patients’ symptoms and help improve functioning. For many diseases, doctors like to get to the root cause of the problem. Treating a symptom often masks an underlying condition. It may make the patient feel better and improve what they are capable of doing, which is important, but it also fails to unmask the real problem. It is also important to note that symptoms can be out of proportion to clinical findings and should not be dismissed: we just don’t have the answers yet.

One helpful recommendation is having a patient keep a diary of their symptoms. This will help both the patient and doctor learn what may be triggering factors. If it is, for example, exertion that induces breathlessness, perhaps the patient can gradually increase their level of activity to minimize symptoms. Additionally, a “comprehensive rehabilitation program” is also advised and this can greatly assist addressing all the issues a patient is experiencing, physically and medically.

It is also advised that management of underlying medical conditions be optimized. While this is very important, it is not something specific to post-COVID syndrome: All patients should have their underlying medical conditions well controlled. It might be that the patient is paying more attention to their overall health, which is a good thing. However, this does not necessarily reduce the current symptoms a patient is experiencing.

The CDC makes a good attempt to offer guidance in the frustrating management of post-COVID syndrome. However, their clinical guidelines fail to offer specific management tools specific to treating post-COVID patients. The recommendations offered are more helpful to health in general. The fact that more specific recommendations are lacking is simply caused by the lack of knowledge of this condition at present. As more research is conducted and more knowledge obtained, new guidelines should become more detailed.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents to you with increased sputum volume and increased dyspnea, but no fever. You diagnose a COPD exacerbation. Would point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing be a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing?

COPD is a common respiratory condition and one of the leading causes of death in the world.² COPD requires chronic therapy and frequent treatment for acute exacerbations.³ A systematic review found that exacerbations occur an average of 1.3 times per year for patients with known COPD.⁴ Antibiotics are often prescribed for COPD exacerbations, but which patients benefit most from antibiotic treatment is unclear and identification often is based on clinical features alone. Additionally, overprescribing of antibiotics can lead to unnecessary adverse effects, drive antibiotic resistance, and be a waste of resources.⁵

The European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) provides a conditional recommendation to consider antibiotics in ambulatory patients with COPD exacerbation based on moderate-quality evidence.⁶ The 2020 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines recommend antibiotics for moderately or severely ill patients with a COPD exacerbation who have increased cough and sputum purulence.⁷ While the ERS/ATS recommendations do not mention CRP, the GOLD guidelines discuss biomarkers as emerging tools in determining antibiotic utility.

Biomarkers such as procalcitonin and CRP are being examined as potential tools to distinguish which patients would benefit from antibiotic treatment in COPD exacerbations. In a 2013 study, CRP levels > 19.6 mg/L in the serum and > 15.2 mg/L in the sputum indicated a bacterial infection, but more research was needed to determine if CRP could help guide antibiotic prescribing.⁸ In a 2019 randomized trial of 101 patients with COPD exacerbations, researchers compared the GOLD strategy for antibiotic prescribing with a CRP-guided antibiotic strategy (CRP ≥ 50 mg/L) and found no difference in adverse events between study groups.⁹

This trial focused on point-of-care CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for patients with COPD exacerbations in the outpatient setting.

STUDY SUMMARY

Point-of-care CRP testing is noninferior to usual care

This open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial at 86 general medical practices in the United Kingdom examined whether the use of point-of-care CRP testing could reduce antibiotic use during acute exacerbations of COPD. Patients (N = 653; 650 needed to provide 81% to 90% power) were ages 40 years and older, had a diagnosis of COPD, and presented for an acute exacerbation of COPD based on the presence of at least 1 Anthonisen criteria (increased dyspnea, increase in sputum volume, and increase in purulent sputum).

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive care guided by point-of-care CRP testing (CRP-guided) or usual care for their COPD exacerbation. Patients in the CRP-guided group received a point-of-care CRP test as part of their assessment at presentation, or at any other appointments for COPD over the following 4 weeks.

The research team provided clinicians with CRP interpretation guidance based on the following CRP values: < 20 mg/L, antibiotics are typically not needed; 20 to 40 mg/L, antibiotics might be beneficial if purulent sputum is present; and > 40 mg/L, antibiotics are usually beneficial. Primary outcomes were patient-reported antibiotic use within 4 weeks and COPD-related health status. Of the patients who received a point-of-care CRP test, the median value was 6 mg/L; 76% had a value < 20 mg/L, 12% had values between 20 and 40 mg/L, and 12% had values > 40 mg/L. In the intention-to-treat analysis, fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use vs those in the usual-care group (57% vs 77%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.47) within 4 weeks. The CRP-guided group also received fewer antibiotics at the initial visit compared to the usual-care group (48% vs 70%; aOR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.45).

COPD-related health status was assessed with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (score range, 0-6; a difference of 0.4 represents minimal clinical importance). At 2 weeks, the adjusted mean difference in the total health status score with the use of CRP was noninferior to usual care and was in favor of the CRP-guided group (mean difference = −0.19 points; two-sided 90% CI, −0.33 to −0.05). There was no evidence of clinically important between-group differences in pneumonia (3% vs 4%; aOR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.29-1.82) at 6-month follow-up. Rates of hospitalization at 6 months were similar between groups (9.3% vs 8.6%; no P value provided).

Fewer patients in the CRPguided group reported antibiotic use vs those in the usual-care group within 4 weeks.

Limitations of this trial included patient report of antibiotic use and the lack of a sham test.

WHAT'S NEW

RCT provides evidence to support use of CRP testing

Point-of-care CRP testing can reduce antibiotic prescribing in patients presenting with a COPD exacerbation without affecting symptom improvement or adverse events.

CAVEATS

CRP testing may not be cost effective

CRP testing—especially point-of-care ­testing—remains expensive in many parts of the United States. A 2015 cost-effectiveness analysis of point-of-care CRP tests for respiratory tract infection in England concluded the cost of the test per patient was not cost effective.¹⁰ It is unknown if point-of-care CRP testing would be cost effective in guiding antibiotic prescribing for ­primary care providers with a focus on COPD exacerbations.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION 

Virtual visits and variable access may limit use

CRP-guided antibiotic prescribing may be challenging in some clinical scenarios or clinics with the rise of virtual visits and differential access in primary care clinics to point-of-care CRP tests. JFP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health. Copyright © 2021. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents to you with increased sputum volume and increased dyspnea, but no fever. You diagnose a COPD exacerbation. Would point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing be a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing?

COPD is a common respiratory condition and one of the leading causes of death in the world.² COPD requires chronic therapy and frequent treatment for acute exacerbations.³ A systematic review found that exacerbations occur an average of 1.3 times per year for patients with known COPD.⁴ Antibiotics are often prescribed for COPD exacerbations, but which patients benefit most from antibiotic treatment is unclear and identification often is based on clinical features alone. Additionally, overprescribing of antibiotics can lead to unnecessary adverse effects, drive antibiotic resistance, and be a waste of resources.⁵

The European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) provides a conditional recommendation to consider antibiotics in ambulatory patients with COPD exacerbation based on moderate-quality evidence.⁶ The 2020 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines recommend antibiotics for moderately or severely ill patients with a COPD exacerbation who have increased cough and sputum purulence.⁷ While the ERS/ATS recommendations do not mention CRP, the GOLD guidelines discuss biomarkers as emerging tools in determining antibiotic utility.

Biomarkers such as procalcitonin and CRP are being examined as potential tools to distinguish which patients would benefit from antibiotic treatment in COPD exacerbations. In a 2013 study, CRP levels > 19.6 mg/L in the serum and > 15.2 mg/L in the sputum indicated a bacterial infection, but more research was needed to determine if CRP could help guide antibiotic prescribing.⁸ In a 2019 randomized trial of 101 patients with COPD exacerbations, researchers compared the GOLD strategy for antibiotic prescribing with a CRP-guided antibiotic strategy (CRP ≥ 50 mg/L) and found no difference in adverse events between study groups.⁹

This trial focused on point-of-care CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for patients with COPD exacerbations in the outpatient setting.

STUDY SUMMARY

Point-of-care CRP testing is noninferior to usual care

This open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial at 86 general medical practices in the United Kingdom examined whether the use of point-of-care CRP testing could reduce antibiotic use during acute exacerbations of COPD. Patients (N = 653; 650 needed to provide 81% to 90% power) were ages 40 years and older, had a diagnosis of COPD, and presented for an acute exacerbation of COPD based on the presence of at least 1 Anthonisen criteria (increased dyspnea, increase in sputum volume, and increase in purulent sputum).

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive care guided by point-of-care CRP testing (CRP-guided) or usual care for their COPD exacerbation. Patients in the CRP-guided group received a point-of-care CRP test as part of their assessment at presentation, or at any other appointments for COPD over the following 4 weeks.

The research team provided clinicians with CRP interpretation guidance based on the following CRP values: < 20 mg/L, antibiotics are typically not needed; 20 to 40 mg/L, antibiotics might be beneficial if purulent sputum is present; and > 40 mg/L, antibiotics are usually beneficial. Primary outcomes were patient-reported antibiotic use within 4 weeks and COPD-related health status. Of the patients who received a point-of-care CRP test, the median value was 6 mg/L; 76% had a value < 20 mg/L, 12% had values between 20 and 40 mg/L, and 12% had values > 40 mg/L. In the intention-to-treat analysis, fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use vs those in the usual-care group (57% vs 77%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.47) within 4 weeks. The CRP-guided group also received fewer antibiotics at the initial visit compared to the usual-care group (48% vs 70%; aOR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.45).

COPD-related health status was assessed with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (score range, 0-6; a difference of 0.4 represents minimal clinical importance). At 2 weeks, the adjusted mean difference in the total health status score with the use of CRP was noninferior to usual care and was in favor of the CRP-guided group (mean difference = −0.19 points; two-sided 90% CI, −0.33 to −0.05). There was no evidence of clinically important between-group differences in pneumonia (3% vs 4%; aOR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.29-1.82) at 6-month follow-up. Rates of hospitalization at 6 months were similar between groups (9.3% vs 8.6%; no P value provided).

Fewer patients in the CRPguided group reported antibiotic use vs those in the usual-care group within 4 weeks.

Limitations of this trial included patient report of antibiotic use and the lack of a sham test.

WHAT'S NEW

RCT provides evidence to support use of CRP testing

Point-of-care CRP testing can reduce antibiotic prescribing in patients presenting with a COPD exacerbation without affecting symptom improvement or adverse events.

CAVEATS

CRP testing may not be cost effective

CRP testing—especially point-of-care ­testing—remains expensive in many parts of the United States. A 2015 cost-effectiveness analysis of point-of-care CRP tests for respiratory tract infection in England concluded the cost of the test per patient was not cost effective.¹⁰ It is unknown if point-of-care CRP testing would be cost effective in guiding antibiotic prescribing for ­primary care providers with a focus on COPD exacerbations.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION 

Virtual visits and variable access may limit use

CRP-guided antibiotic prescribing may be challenging in some clinical scenarios or clinics with the rise of virtual visits and differential access in primary care clinics to point-of-care CRP tests. JFP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health. Copyright © 2021. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 55-year-old man with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents to you with increased sputum volume and increased dyspnea, but no fever. You diagnose a COPD exacerbation. Would point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing be a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing?

COPD is a common respiratory condition and one of the leading causes of death in the world.² COPD requires chronic therapy and frequent treatment for acute exacerbations.³ A systematic review found that exacerbations occur an average of 1.3 times per year for patients with known COPD.⁴ Antibiotics are often prescribed for COPD exacerbations, but which patients benefit most from antibiotic treatment is unclear and identification often is based on clinical features alone. Additionally, overprescribing of antibiotics can lead to unnecessary adverse effects, drive antibiotic resistance, and be a waste of resources.⁵

The European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) provides a conditional recommendation to consider antibiotics in ambulatory patients with COPD exacerbation based on moderate-quality evidence.⁶ The 2020 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines recommend antibiotics for moderately or severely ill patients with a COPD exacerbation who have increased cough and sputum purulence.⁷ While the ERS/ATS recommendations do not mention CRP, the GOLD guidelines discuss biomarkers as emerging tools in determining antibiotic utility.

Biomarkers such as procalcitonin and CRP are being examined as potential tools to distinguish which patients would benefit from antibiotic treatment in COPD exacerbations. In a 2013 study, CRP levels > 19.6 mg/L in the serum and > 15.2 mg/L in the sputum indicated a bacterial infection, but more research was needed to determine if CRP could help guide antibiotic prescribing.⁸ In a 2019 randomized trial of 101 patients with COPD exacerbations, researchers compared the GOLD strategy for antibiotic prescribing with a CRP-guided antibiotic strategy (CRP ≥ 50 mg/L) and found no difference in adverse events between study groups.⁹

This trial focused on point-of-care CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for patients with COPD exacerbations in the outpatient setting.

STUDY SUMMARY

Point-of-care CRP testing is noninferior to usual care

This open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial at 86 general medical practices in the United Kingdom examined whether the use of point-of-care CRP testing could reduce antibiotic use during acute exacerbations of COPD. Patients (N = 653; 650 needed to provide 81% to 90% power) were ages 40 years and older, had a diagnosis of COPD, and presented for an acute exacerbation of COPD based on the presence of at least 1 Anthonisen criteria (increased dyspnea, increase in sputum volume, and increase in purulent sputum).

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive care guided by point-of-care CRP testing (CRP-guided) or usual care for their COPD exacerbation. Patients in the CRP-guided group received a point-of-care CRP test as part of their assessment at presentation, or at any other appointments for COPD over the following 4 weeks.

The research team provided clinicians with CRP interpretation guidance based on the following CRP values: < 20 mg/L, antibiotics are typically not needed; 20 to 40 mg/L, antibiotics might be beneficial if purulent sputum is present; and > 40 mg/L, antibiotics are usually beneficial. Primary outcomes were patient-reported antibiotic use within 4 weeks and COPD-related health status. Of the patients who received a point-of-care CRP test, the median value was 6 mg/L; 76% had a value < 20 mg/L, 12% had values between 20 and 40 mg/L, and 12% had values > 40 mg/L. In the intention-to-treat analysis, fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use vs those in the usual-care group (57% vs 77%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.47) within 4 weeks. The CRP-guided group also received fewer antibiotics at the initial visit compared to the usual-care group (48% vs 70%; aOR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.45).

COPD-related health status was assessed with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (score range, 0-6; a difference of 0.4 represents minimal clinical importance). At 2 weeks, the adjusted mean difference in the total health status score with the use of CRP was noninferior to usual care and was in favor of the CRP-guided group (mean difference = −0.19 points; two-sided 90% CI, −0.33 to −0.05). There was no evidence of clinically important between-group differences in pneumonia (3% vs 4%; aOR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.29-1.82) at 6-month follow-up. Rates of hospitalization at 6 months were similar between groups (9.3% vs 8.6%; no P value provided).

Fewer patients in the CRPguided group reported antibiotic use vs those in the usual-care group within 4 weeks.

Limitations of this trial included patient report of antibiotic use and the lack of a sham test.

WHAT'S NEW

RCT provides evidence to support use of CRP testing

Point-of-care CRP testing can reduce antibiotic prescribing in patients presenting with a COPD exacerbation without affecting symptom improvement or adverse events.

CAVEATS

CRP testing may not be cost effective

CRP testing—especially point-of-care ­testing—remains expensive in many parts of the United States. A 2015 cost-effectiveness analysis of point-of-care CRP tests for respiratory tract infection in England concluded the cost of the test per patient was not cost effective.¹⁰ It is unknown if point-of-care CRP testing would be cost effective in guiding antibiotic prescribing for ­primary care providers with a focus on COPD exacerbations.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION 

Virtual visits and variable access may limit use

CRP-guided antibiotic prescribing may be challenging in some clinical scenarios or clinics with the rise of virtual visits and differential access in primary care clinics to point-of-care CRP tests. JFP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health. Copyright © 2021. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Case Presentation: A 62-year-old male presented with shortness of breath and a cough productive of green sputum. He had a history of hyperlipidemia, posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, and a 50 pack-year history of smoking. His medications included prazosin, melatonin, lithium, and gabapentin. He also had a significant exposure history including asbestos and chemical paints following his leave from the military. At the initial evaluation, laboratory work revealed a leukocytosis with white blood cell (WBC) count 20 k/cm³and otherwise normal transaminases, albumin, and electrolytes. A chest X-ray revealed a new left hilar mass.

►Manisha Apte, MD, Chief Medical Resident, VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) and Boston Medical Center (BMC): To work up his new left hilar mass, a computed tomography (CT) of the chest was ordered (Figure 1), which revealed an apical left lower lobe mass extending into the left hilum encasing part of the ascending aorta. Enlarged mediastinal subcentimeter paratracheal and superior mediastinal lymph nodes also were identified and the pattern raised the concern for lymphangitic carcinomatosis. Dr. Fine, what do you make of the CT findings?

►Dr. Apte: Four weeks later, the patient presented with continued shortness of breath, fatigue, and fever. A repeat chest CT showed an opacity suggestive of pneumonia. Given the continued concern for cancer a CT-guided needle biopsy was performed and was once again negative for malignancy. The decision was made to pursue a video-assisted thorascopic surgery (VATS). Following the VATS, the patient developed rigors, fever, and tachycardia with new atrial fibrillation. While being evaluated hypercalcemia was identified, with further workup revealing a low parathyroid hormone (PTH) and low PTH-related peptide. Dr. Fine, the presence of hypercalcemia and a new arrythmia raised the possibility of sarcoidosis. Could this be sarcoidosis?


►Dr. Fine: Sarcoidosis is one of the great masqueraders in medicine. There is a type of sarcoidosis called nodular sarcoidosis where you see masslike distribution in the lung, but generally there are multiple masses and so this presentation would be atypical.³ There is also a phenomenon called sarcoidal reactions usually in the presence of cancer. Again, one tends to see multiple tiny lesions in the lung. It is certainly on the differential, but I would consider it to be less likely than cancer. It is also relatively common to develop atrial fibrillation after manipulation from a lung surgery.⁴ The other possibility I am concerned about is whether the mass is invading the mediastinum and involving the pericardium.


►Dr. Apte: Results from the VATS biopsy once again returned negative for malignancy and instead showed signs of focal micro-abscesses, atypical pneumocytes, and prominent neutrophils. A diagnosis of acute fibrinous organizing pneumonia (AFOP) was offered. Dr. Fine, what is AFOP?


►Dr. Fine: This is the first case of AFOP I had seen and probably the first case many in our department have seen. This is a relatively new entity with limited reported cases in the literature and is a pathological diagnosis originally recorded in autopsies from patients at the National Institutes of Health.^5,6 Given the complexity of the lesion, the diagnosis is difficult to make. Most commonly, AFOP is associated with other systemic entities, most commonly hematologic malignancies like lymphomas and leukemias. It has also been associated with vasculitis and certain drugs. The mechanism is poorly understood, and although pneumonia is a part of the term, this just implies there is inflammation of the lung (ie, pneumonitis).


► Dr. Apte: Given the association of AFOP with underlying hematologic malignancies, an emphasis was placed on another finding: the patient’s increasing WBC count. The total WBC count had been 20 k/cm³ at the time of his lung mass discovery but had increased to > 40 k/cm³ with a differential of neutrophils > 80%. Flow cytometry was negative, and his peripheral smear was read as normal. Dr. Gilbert, what might explain this patient’s leukocytosis?

►Gary Gilbert, MD, Section of Hematology and Oncology, VABHS and Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (HMS): This patient had an elevated WBC for 4 months. Initially, the cause was likely lithium as this is known to cause a leukocytosis.⁷ More recently, the total WBC had increased and there were a couple of other abnormalities: A consistently elevated absolute monocyte count and a markedly elevated mature neutrophil count. These findings are consistent with a leukemoid reaction (ie, a WBC count > 50,000/µL from causes other than leukemia). The question becomes what is this a leukemoid reaction in response to? Once we have excluded a lung malignancy (a well-known common cause of a leukemoid reaction) we must consider a clonal myeloproliferative disorder. This is particularly true because many things that cause a leukemoid reaction (eg, lobar pneumonia) do not cause a persistently elevated neutrophil count. That this patient does have a persistently elevated neutrophil count suggests something abnormal about the neutrophils themselves.

► Dr. Apte: A bone marrow biopsy was performed. Dr. Gilbert, can you comment on this patient’s bone marrow biopsy and whether a myeloproliferative disorder may have played a role in the marked leukocytosis?

► Dr. Gilbert: The bone marrow biopsy was hyperplastic with myeloid predominance and normal maturation in all lineages. A deep sequencing analysis demonstrated the absence of chromosomal abnormalities or genetic mutations that are associated with myeloproliferative disorders. This excludes the possibility of a myeloproliferative disorder.


► Dr. Apte: The patient was started on 60 mg of prednisone daily, which led to marked improvement in his symptoms. He was discharged in stable condition but presented again with abdominal pain. A complete blood count once again showed increased WBC and new thrombocytosis. A CT angiogram (CTA) showed the prior lung mass with new signs of central necrosis. In the abdomen, new splenic and renal infarct were identified, along with signs of multiple arterial thrombi in the abdomen and internal and external iliac vessel wall thickening. These findings were read as concerning for a medium vessel vasculitis. Dr. Kaur, what are some of the imaging findings you would expect to see in vasculitis, and what about this patient’s CT is consistent with a medium vessel vasculitis?


► Maneet Kaur, MD, Section of Rheumatology, VABHS: Vasculitis is inflammation of the vessel wall that can lead to vascular injury and activation of the coagulation cascade. Sometimes these findings can be seen on imaging with evidence of stenosis, microaneurysms, and thrombosis distal to the stenosis. The nomenclature of vasculitis is not simple and has been revised many times. Medium-vessel vasculitis does not just affect the medium vessels (eg, visceral arteries) but can overlap with distal large vessels and smaller cutaneous vessels.

The first thing that comes to mind in this case is polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), an immune complex-mediated medium vessel disease that can involve large and small vessels in muscle, nerve, and skin. It can also present with masses.

►Dr. Apte: To address the arterial thrombi seen on CTA, arterial-brachial indices were obtained and showed bilateral occlusive disease in his distal extremities; findings that could be explained by vasculitis. His VATS biopsy pathology was reviewed for signs of vasculitis. Dr. Huang, can you review these slides for us please?

►Qin Huang, MD, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, VABHS and Assistant Professor of Pathology, HMS: This patient had a history of smoking, and there are many black pigment-laden macrophages present in the lung tissue. There were areas of hemorrhage and fibrin deposition and an overall picture of organizing pneumonia. At a lower power, you can see neutrophils everywhere, some in the form of micro-abscesses. The arterial walls did not show signs of vasculitis (Figure 2). Based on the clinical information and radiology findings, we suspected an acute infection-related pneumonia or a primary lung malignancy causing obstruction pneumonia. We suggested a rebiopsy of the lung mass to rule out a primary lung malignancy.

► Dr. Apte: Given his CT findings, a serologic rheumatologic workup including antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody, antinuclear antibody, and rheumatoid factors were sent and returned negative. The location of arterial wall inflammation on imaging made it unamenable for biopsy. The patient began to experience bilateral temporal pain, which raised the concern for a large vessel vasculitis, specifically giant cell arteritis. Bilateral temporal artery biopsies were obtained and were not suggestive of vasculitis. Dr. Kaur, we still do not have any serologic or biopsy confirmation to support a diagnosis of vasculitis. Can we still call this a vasculitis?

►Dr. Kaur: Few things can cause the picture that was seen radiographically. A few noninflammatory causes like fibromuscular dysplasia can cause both large and small vessel stenosis, but the elevations in erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein along with response to steroids makes these diagnoses unlikely. Sometimes we must make a clinical diagnosis for vasculitis based on the clinical picture, and I would feel comfortable treating this patient for vasculitis.

With that said, I remain concerned that this patient also has a malignancy. His WBC increased to > 70 k/cm³ and his calcium to > 13 mg/dL. These findings are hard to explain by vasculitis alone. There are cancer-associated vasculitis, and I suspect this is the explanation here.⁸ His temporal pain was pointing to large vessel involvement, so he could have an undifferentiated vasculitis.

► Dr. Apte: A decision was made to empirically treat with tocilizumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist, for an undifferentiated autoimmune disease, in addition to tapering steroids. The patient underwent a second VATS, which again revealed AFOP but no signs of malignancy. Unfortunately, he developed multiple complications over the subsequent weeks and passed away. An autopsy was requested by family members and pathology from his lung mass was reviewed. (Figure 3). Dr. Huang, can you review these slides for us?

Case Presentation: A 62-year-old male presented with shortness of breath and a cough productive of green sputum. He had a history of hyperlipidemia, posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, and a 50 pack-year history of smoking. His medications included prazosin, melatonin, lithium, and gabapentin. He also had a significant exposure history including asbestos and chemical paints following his leave from the military. At the initial evaluation, laboratory work revealed a leukocytosis with white blood cell (WBC) count 20 k/cm³and otherwise normal transaminases, albumin, and electrolytes. A chest X-ray revealed a new left hilar mass.

►Manisha Apte, MD, Chief Medical Resident, VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) and Boston Medical Center (BMC): To work up his new left hilar mass, a computed tomography (CT) of the chest was ordered (Figure 1), which revealed an apical left lower lobe mass extending into the left hilum encasing part of the ascending aorta. Enlarged mediastinal subcentimeter paratracheal and superior mediastinal lymph nodes also were identified and the pattern raised the concern for lymphangitic carcinomatosis. Dr. Fine, what do you make of the CT findings?

►Dr. Apte: Four weeks later, the patient presented with continued shortness of breath, fatigue, and fever. A repeat chest CT showed an opacity suggestive of pneumonia. Given the continued concern for cancer a CT-guided needle biopsy was performed and was once again negative for malignancy. The decision was made to pursue a video-assisted thorascopic surgery (VATS). Following the VATS, the patient developed rigors, fever, and tachycardia with new atrial fibrillation. While being evaluated hypercalcemia was identified, with further workup revealing a low parathyroid hormone (PTH) and low PTH-related peptide. Dr. Fine, the presence of hypercalcemia and a new arrythmia raised the possibility of sarcoidosis. Could this be sarcoidosis?


►Dr. Fine: Sarcoidosis is one of the great masqueraders in medicine. There is a type of sarcoidosis called nodular sarcoidosis where you see masslike distribution in the lung, but generally there are multiple masses and so this presentation would be atypical.³ There is also a phenomenon called sarcoidal reactions usually in the presence of cancer. Again, one tends to see multiple tiny lesions in the lung. It is certainly on the differential, but I would consider it to be less likely than cancer. It is also relatively common to develop atrial fibrillation after manipulation from a lung surgery.⁴ The other possibility I am concerned about is whether the mass is invading the mediastinum and involving the pericardium.


►Dr. Apte: Results from the VATS biopsy once again returned negative for malignancy and instead showed signs of focal micro-abscesses, atypical pneumocytes, and prominent neutrophils. A diagnosis of acute fibrinous organizing pneumonia (AFOP) was offered. Dr. Fine, what is AFOP?


►Dr. Fine: This is the first case of AFOP I had seen and probably the first case many in our department have seen. This is a relatively new entity with limited reported cases in the literature and is a pathological diagnosis originally recorded in autopsies from patients at the National Institutes of Health.^5,6 Given the complexity of the lesion, the diagnosis is difficult to make. Most commonly, AFOP is associated with other systemic entities, most commonly hematologic malignancies like lymphomas and leukemias. It has also been associated with vasculitis and certain drugs. The mechanism is poorly understood, and although pneumonia is a part of the term, this just implies there is inflammation of the lung (ie, pneumonitis).


► Dr. Apte: Given the association of AFOP with underlying hematologic malignancies, an emphasis was placed on another finding: the patient’s increasing WBC count. The total WBC count had been 20 k/cm³ at the time of his lung mass discovery but had increased to > 40 k/cm³ with a differential of neutrophils > 80%. Flow cytometry was negative, and his peripheral smear was read as normal. Dr. Gilbert, what might explain this patient’s leukocytosis?

►Gary Gilbert, MD, Section of Hematology and Oncology, VABHS and Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (HMS): This patient had an elevated WBC for 4 months. Initially, the cause was likely lithium as this is known to cause a leukocytosis.⁷ More recently, the total WBC had increased and there were a couple of other abnormalities: A consistently elevated absolute monocyte count and a markedly elevated mature neutrophil count. These findings are consistent with a leukemoid reaction (ie, a WBC count > 50,000/µL from causes other than leukemia). The question becomes what is this a leukemoid reaction in response to? Once we have excluded a lung malignancy (a well-known common cause of a leukemoid reaction) we must consider a clonal myeloproliferative disorder. This is particularly true because many things that cause a leukemoid reaction (eg, lobar pneumonia) do not cause a persistently elevated neutrophil count. That this patient does have a persistently elevated neutrophil count suggests something abnormal about the neutrophils themselves.

► Dr. Apte: A bone marrow biopsy was performed. Dr. Gilbert, can you comment on this patient’s bone marrow biopsy and whether a myeloproliferative disorder may have played a role in the marked leukocytosis?

► Dr. Gilbert: The bone marrow biopsy was hyperplastic with myeloid predominance and normal maturation in all lineages. A deep sequencing analysis demonstrated the absence of chromosomal abnormalities or genetic mutations that are associated with myeloproliferative disorders. This excludes the possibility of a myeloproliferative disorder.


► Dr. Apte: The patient was started on 60 mg of prednisone daily, which led to marked improvement in his symptoms. He was discharged in stable condition but presented again with abdominal pain. A complete blood count once again showed increased WBC and new thrombocytosis. A CT angiogram (CTA) showed the prior lung mass with new signs of central necrosis. In the abdomen, new splenic and renal infarct were identified, along with signs of multiple arterial thrombi in the abdomen and internal and external iliac vessel wall thickening. These findings were read as concerning for a medium vessel vasculitis. Dr. Kaur, what are some of the imaging findings you would expect to see in vasculitis, and what about this patient’s CT is consistent with a medium vessel vasculitis?


► Maneet Kaur, MD, Section of Rheumatology, VABHS: Vasculitis is inflammation of the vessel wall that can lead to vascular injury and activation of the coagulation cascade. Sometimes these findings can be seen on imaging with evidence of stenosis, microaneurysms, and thrombosis distal to the stenosis. The nomenclature of vasculitis is not simple and has been revised many times. Medium-vessel vasculitis does not just affect the medium vessels (eg, visceral arteries) but can overlap with distal large vessels and smaller cutaneous vessels.

The first thing that comes to mind in this case is polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), an immune complex-mediated medium vessel disease that can involve large and small vessels in muscle, nerve, and skin. It can also present with masses.

►Dr. Apte: To address the arterial thrombi seen on CTA, arterial-brachial indices were obtained and showed bilateral occlusive disease in his distal extremities; findings that could be explained by vasculitis. His VATS biopsy pathology was reviewed for signs of vasculitis. Dr. Huang, can you review these slides for us please?

►Qin Huang, MD, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, VABHS and Assistant Professor of Pathology, HMS: This patient had a history of smoking, and there are many black pigment-laden macrophages present in the lung tissue. There were areas of hemorrhage and fibrin deposition and an overall picture of organizing pneumonia. At a lower power, you can see neutrophils everywhere, some in the form of micro-abscesses. The arterial walls did not show signs of vasculitis (Figure 2). Based on the clinical information and radiology findings, we suspected an acute infection-related pneumonia or a primary lung malignancy causing obstruction pneumonia. We suggested a rebiopsy of the lung mass to rule out a primary lung malignancy.

► Dr. Apte: Given his CT findings, a serologic rheumatologic workup including antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody, antinuclear antibody, and rheumatoid factors were sent and returned negative. The location of arterial wall inflammation on imaging made it unamenable for biopsy. The patient began to experience bilateral temporal pain, which raised the concern for a large vessel vasculitis, specifically giant cell arteritis. Bilateral temporal artery biopsies were obtained and were not suggestive of vasculitis. Dr. Kaur, we still do not have any serologic or biopsy confirmation to support a diagnosis of vasculitis. Can we still call this a vasculitis?

►Dr. Kaur: Few things can cause the picture that was seen radiographically. A few noninflammatory causes like fibromuscular dysplasia can cause both large and small vessel stenosis, but the elevations in erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein along with response to steroids makes these diagnoses unlikely. Sometimes we must make a clinical diagnosis for vasculitis based on the clinical picture, and I would feel comfortable treating this patient for vasculitis.

With that said, I remain concerned that this patient also has a malignancy. His WBC increased to > 70 k/cm³ and his calcium to > 13 mg/dL. These findings are hard to explain by vasculitis alone. There are cancer-associated vasculitis, and I suspect this is the explanation here.⁸ His temporal pain was pointing to large vessel involvement, so he could have an undifferentiated vasculitis.

► Dr. Apte: A decision was made to empirically treat with tocilizumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist, for an undifferentiated autoimmune disease, in addition to tapering steroids. The patient underwent a second VATS, which again revealed AFOP but no signs of malignancy. Unfortunately, he developed multiple complications over the subsequent weeks and passed away. An autopsy was requested by family members and pathology from his lung mass was reviewed. (Figure 3). Dr. Huang, can you review these slides for us?

Case Presentation: A 62-year-old male presented with shortness of breath and a cough productive of green sputum. He had a history of hyperlipidemia, posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, and a 50 pack-year history of smoking. His medications included prazosin, melatonin, lithium, and gabapentin. He also had a significant exposure history including asbestos and chemical paints following his leave from the military. At the initial evaluation, laboratory work revealed a leukocytosis with white blood cell (WBC) count 20 k/cm³and otherwise normal transaminases, albumin, and electrolytes. A chest X-ray revealed a new left hilar mass.

►Manisha Apte, MD, Chief Medical Resident, VA Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) and Boston Medical Center (BMC): To work up his new left hilar mass, a computed tomography (CT) of the chest was ordered (Figure 1), which revealed an apical left lower lobe mass extending into the left hilum encasing part of the ascending aorta. Enlarged mediastinal subcentimeter paratracheal and superior mediastinal lymph nodes also were identified and the pattern raised the concern for lymphangitic carcinomatosis. Dr. Fine, what do you make of the CT findings?

►Dr. Apte: Four weeks later, the patient presented with continued shortness of breath, fatigue, and fever. A repeat chest CT showed an opacity suggestive of pneumonia. Given the continued concern for cancer a CT-guided needle biopsy was performed and was once again negative for malignancy. The decision was made to pursue a video-assisted thorascopic surgery (VATS). Following the VATS, the patient developed rigors, fever, and tachycardia with new atrial fibrillation. While being evaluated hypercalcemia was identified, with further workup revealing a low parathyroid hormone (PTH) and low PTH-related peptide. Dr. Fine, the presence of hypercalcemia and a new arrythmia raised the possibility of sarcoidosis. Could this be sarcoidosis?


►Dr. Fine: Sarcoidosis is one of the great masqueraders in medicine. There is a type of sarcoidosis called nodular sarcoidosis where you see masslike distribution in the lung, but generally there are multiple masses and so this presentation would be atypical.³ There is also a phenomenon called sarcoidal reactions usually in the presence of cancer. Again, one tends to see multiple tiny lesions in the lung. It is certainly on the differential, but I would consider it to be less likely than cancer. It is also relatively common to develop atrial fibrillation after manipulation from a lung surgery.⁴ The other possibility I am concerned about is whether the mass is invading the mediastinum and involving the pericardium.


►Dr. Apte: Results from the VATS biopsy once again returned negative for malignancy and instead showed signs of focal micro-abscesses, atypical pneumocytes, and prominent neutrophils. A diagnosis of acute fibrinous organizing pneumonia (AFOP) was offered. Dr. Fine, what is AFOP?


►Dr. Fine: This is the first case of AFOP I had seen and probably the first case many in our department have seen. This is a relatively new entity with limited reported cases in the literature and is a pathological diagnosis originally recorded in autopsies from patients at the National Institutes of Health.^5,6 Given the complexity of the lesion, the diagnosis is difficult to make. Most commonly, AFOP is associated with other systemic entities, most commonly hematologic malignancies like lymphomas and leukemias. It has also been associated with vasculitis and certain drugs. The mechanism is poorly understood, and although pneumonia is a part of the term, this just implies there is inflammation of the lung (ie, pneumonitis).


► Dr. Apte: Given the association of AFOP with underlying hematologic malignancies, an emphasis was placed on another finding: the patient’s increasing WBC count. The total WBC count had been 20 k/cm³ at the time of his lung mass discovery but had increased to > 40 k/cm³ with a differential of neutrophils > 80%. Flow cytometry was negative, and his peripheral smear was read as normal. Dr. Gilbert, what might explain this patient’s leukocytosis?

►Gary Gilbert, MD, Section of Hematology and Oncology, VABHS and Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School (HMS): This patient had an elevated WBC for 4 months. Initially, the cause was likely lithium as this is known to cause a leukocytosis.⁷ More recently, the total WBC had increased and there were a couple of other abnormalities: A consistently elevated absolute monocyte count and a markedly elevated mature neutrophil count. These findings are consistent with a leukemoid reaction (ie, a WBC count > 50,000/µL from causes other than leukemia). The question becomes what is this a leukemoid reaction in response to? Once we have excluded a lung malignancy (a well-known common cause of a leukemoid reaction) we must consider a clonal myeloproliferative disorder. This is particularly true because many things that cause a leukemoid reaction (eg, lobar pneumonia) do not cause a persistently elevated neutrophil count. That this patient does have a persistently elevated neutrophil count suggests something abnormal about the neutrophils themselves.

► Dr. Apte: A bone marrow biopsy was performed. Dr. Gilbert, can you comment on this patient’s bone marrow biopsy and whether a myeloproliferative disorder may have played a role in the marked leukocytosis?

► Dr. Gilbert: The bone marrow biopsy was hyperplastic with myeloid predominance and normal maturation in all lineages. A deep sequencing analysis demonstrated the absence of chromosomal abnormalities or genetic mutations that are associated with myeloproliferative disorders. This excludes the possibility of a myeloproliferative disorder.


► Dr. Apte: The patient was started on 60 mg of prednisone daily, which led to marked improvement in his symptoms. He was discharged in stable condition but presented again with abdominal pain. A complete blood count once again showed increased WBC and new thrombocytosis. A CT angiogram (CTA) showed the prior lung mass with new signs of central necrosis. In the abdomen, new splenic and renal infarct were identified, along with signs of multiple arterial thrombi in the abdomen and internal and external iliac vessel wall thickening. These findings were read as concerning for a medium vessel vasculitis. Dr. Kaur, what are some of the imaging findings you would expect to see in vasculitis, and what about this patient’s CT is consistent with a medium vessel vasculitis?


► Maneet Kaur, MD, Section of Rheumatology, VABHS: Vasculitis is inflammation of the vessel wall that can lead to vascular injury and activation of the coagulation cascade. Sometimes these findings can be seen on imaging with evidence of stenosis, microaneurysms, and thrombosis distal to the stenosis. The nomenclature of vasculitis is not simple and has been revised many times. Medium-vessel vasculitis does not just affect the medium vessels (eg, visceral arteries) but can overlap with distal large vessels and smaller cutaneous vessels.

The first thing that comes to mind in this case is polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), an immune complex-mediated medium vessel disease that can involve large and small vessels in muscle, nerve, and skin. It can also present with masses.

►Dr. Apte: To address the arterial thrombi seen on CTA, arterial-brachial indices were obtained and showed bilateral occlusive disease in his distal extremities; findings that could be explained by vasculitis. His VATS biopsy pathology was reviewed for signs of vasculitis. Dr. Huang, can you review these slides for us please?

►Qin Huang, MD, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, VABHS and Assistant Professor of Pathology, HMS: This patient had a history of smoking, and there are many black pigment-laden macrophages present in the lung tissue. There were areas of hemorrhage and fibrin deposition and an overall picture of organizing pneumonia. At a lower power, you can see neutrophils everywhere, some in the form of micro-abscesses. The arterial walls did not show signs of vasculitis (Figure 2). Based on the clinical information and radiology findings, we suspected an acute infection-related pneumonia or a primary lung malignancy causing obstruction pneumonia. We suggested a rebiopsy of the lung mass to rule out a primary lung malignancy.

► Dr. Apte: Given his CT findings, a serologic rheumatologic workup including antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody, antinuclear antibody, and rheumatoid factors were sent and returned negative. The location of arterial wall inflammation on imaging made it unamenable for biopsy. The patient began to experience bilateral temporal pain, which raised the concern for a large vessel vasculitis, specifically giant cell arteritis. Bilateral temporal artery biopsies were obtained and were not suggestive of vasculitis. Dr. Kaur, we still do not have any serologic or biopsy confirmation to support a diagnosis of vasculitis. Can we still call this a vasculitis?

►Dr. Kaur: Few things can cause the picture that was seen radiographically. A few noninflammatory causes like fibromuscular dysplasia can cause both large and small vessel stenosis, but the elevations in erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein along with response to steroids makes these diagnoses unlikely. Sometimes we must make a clinical diagnosis for vasculitis based on the clinical picture, and I would feel comfortable treating this patient for vasculitis.

With that said, I remain concerned that this patient also has a malignancy. His WBC increased to > 70 k/cm³ and his calcium to > 13 mg/dL. These findings are hard to explain by vasculitis alone. There are cancer-associated vasculitis, and I suspect this is the explanation here.⁸ His temporal pain was pointing to large vessel involvement, so he could have an undifferentiated vasculitis.

► Dr. Apte: A decision was made to empirically treat with tocilizumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist, for an undifferentiated autoimmune disease, in addition to tapering steroids. The patient underwent a second VATS, which again revealed AFOP but no signs of malignancy. Unfortunately, he developed multiple complications over the subsequent weeks and passed away. An autopsy was requested by family members and pathology from his lung mass was reviewed. (Figure 3). Dr. Huang, can you review these slides for us?

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

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

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

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

Public health precautions meant to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may have had an unintended but happy side effect.

They may also have benefited individuals who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to a new study.

During the pandemic, admissions for COPD flare-ups dropped dramatically – by 53% – at University of Maryland Medical System hospitals.

Researchers at the university suspect this was the result of a drop in circulating seasonal respiratory viruses, such as influenza. They theorized that stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mask mandates, and strict limits on large gatherings reduced exposure not only to COVID but also to other respiratory infections.

“Our study shows there’s a silver lining to the behavior changes beyond protecting against COVID-19,” said senior author Robert Reed, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of medicine.

COPD is a group of lung diseases that worsen over time and make it hard to breathe. Before the pandemic, they were the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide, commonly triggered by tobacco smoke and dirty air. Nearly half of flare-ups are caused by seasonal respiratory viruses.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 13 UMMS hospitals, comparing weekly admissions for COPD in 2018 and 2019, with admissions after April 1, 2020, when COVID-19 public health measures were introduced. Investigators chose the same six-month period in each year for comparison – April 1 to Sept. 30.

The findings were matched against U.S. federal data on respiratory viral trends between Jan. 1, 2018, and Oct. 1, 2020.

As significant as was the system’s 53% drop in COPD admissions during the pandemic, there was also a 36% decline in weekly admissions for such serious conditions as congestive heart failure, diabetes and heart attack, said co–lead author Jennifer So, MD. She’s an assistant professor of medicine and COPD specialist.

The researchers warned that a full return to normal may again expose COPD patients to the familiar seasonal triggers.

“If we completely eliminate masks and distancing during cold and flu season, we’ll allow all those viruses that have been effectively suppressed to come raging back,” Dr. Reed said in a university news release. “There could be a lot of illness.”

He noted that the study did not assess which measures tamed seasonal viruses. But, Dr. Reed added, “a simple thing like wearing a mask while riding on public transit or working from home when you’re sick with a cold could go a long way to reduce virus exposure.”

Dr. So said it is a cultural norm in her native South Korea to wear masks during the winter.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has helped a lot of people around the world become more aware of the role of masking and social distancing to reduce the spread of disease,” she said in the release.

The findings were recently published in the preprint server medRxiv and have not yet been peer reviewed.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on COVID-19 and chronic lung diseases.

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

Quantitative assessment of the extent of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis and levels of certain proteins in bronchoalveolar lavage samples have potential for predicting mortality and disease progression, according to two analyses of data from the Scleroderma Lung Study I and II.

The analyses, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, aim to improve current prognostic abilities in patients with systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). Although forced vital capacity is commonly used as a biomarker for survival in many SSc-ILD trials, other factors can affect FVC, such as respiratory muscle weakness and skin fibrosis. Further, FVC correlates poorly with patient-reported outcomes, explained first author Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, director of the scleroderma program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the founder and codirector of the UCLA connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program.

Dr. Volkmann presented two studies that investigated the potential of radiographic and protein biomarkers for predicting mortality and identifying patients at risk for ILD progression. The biomarkers may also help to identify patients who would benefit most from immunosuppressive therapy.

The first study found that tracking the quantitative extent of ILD (QILD) over time with high-resolution CT (HRCT) predicted poorer outcomes and could therefore act as a surrogate endpoint for mortality among patients with SSc-ILD. The other study identified associations between specific proteins from bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and the likelihood of ILD progression, although some associations were treatment dependent.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), who was not involved in the study, found the results intriguing and noted the importance of further validation in research before these biomarkers are considered for clinical use.

“It would be wonderful if we can tailor therapy based on BAL biomarkers in the future, as clinicians often struggle to decide on selection, timing, and duration of immunosuppressive treatment,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “This has become even more relevant with the introduction of new drugs such as nintedanib.”
 

Extent of ILD progression as a surrogate for mortality

Scleroderma Lung Study I involved 158 patients with SSc-ILD who were randomly assigned to receive either cyclophosphamide or placebo for 12 months. Scleroderma Lung Study II included 142 patients with SSc-ILD who were randomly assigned to receive either mycophenolate for 24 months or cyclophosphamide for 12 months followed by placebo for 12 months.

The researchers calculated QILD in the whole lung at baseline, at 12 months in the first trial, and at 24 months in the second trial. However, only 82 participants from the first trial and 90 participants from the second trial underwent HRCT. Demographic and disease characteristics were similar between the two groups on follow-up scans.

Follow-up continued for 12 years for patients in the first trial and 8 years in the second. The researchers compared survival rates between the 41% of participants from the first study and 31% of participants from the second study who had poorer QILD scores (at least a 2% increase) with the participants who had stable or improved scores (less than 2% increase).

Participants from both trials had significantly poorer long-term survival if their QILD scores had increased by at least 2% at follow-up (P = .01 for I; P = .019 for II). The association was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline FVC, age, and modified Rodnan skin score in the first trial (hazard ratio, 1.98; P = .089), but it remained significant for participants of the second trial (HR, 3.86; P = .014).

“Data from two independent trial cohorts demonstrated that radiographic progression of SSc-ILD at 1 and 2 years is associated with worse long-term survival,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees.

However, FVC did not significantly predict risk of mortality in either trial.

“To me, the most striking finding from the first study was that change in QILD performed better as a predictor of survival than change in FVC,” Dr. van Laar said in an interview. “This indicates QILD is fit for purpose and worth including in future clinical trials.”

Limitations of the study included lack of HRCT for all participants in the trials and the difference in timing (1 year and 2 years) of HRCT assessment between the two trials. The greater hazard ratio for worsened QILD in the second trial may suggest that assessment at 2 years provides more reliable data as a biomarker, Dr. Volkmann said.

“QILD may represent a better proxy for how a patient feels, functions, and survives than FVC,” she said.
 

Treatment-dependent biomarkers for worsening lung fibrosis

In the second study, the researchers looked for any associations between changes in the radiographic extent of SSc-ILD and 68 proteins from BAL.

“Being able to risk-stratify patients with interstitial lung disease at the time of diagnosis and predict which patients are likely to have a stable versus progressive disease course is critical for making important treatment decisions for these patients,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees.

The second study she presented involved Scleroderma Lung Study I. Of the 158 participants, 144 underwent a bronchoscopy, yielding BAL protein samples from 103 participants. The researchers determined the extent of radiographic fibrosis in the whole lung with quantitative imaging analysis of HRCT of the chest at baseline and 12 months.

Although the researchers identified several statistically significant associations between certain proteins and changes in radiographic fibrosis, “baseline protein levels were differentially associated with the course of ILD based on treatment status,” she told attendees.

For example, increased levels of the following proteins were linked to poor radiographic fibrosis scores for patients who received placebo:

• Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
• Interleukin-1
• Monocyte chemoattractant protein–3
• Chemokine ligand–5
• Transforming growth factor–beta
• Hepatocyte growth factor
• Stem cell factor
• IL-4
• TGF-alpha

Yet increases in these proteins predicted improvement in radiographic fibrosis in patients who had taken cyclophosphamide.

Independently of treatment, the researchers also identified an association between higher levels of fractalkine and poorer radiographic fibrosis scores and between higher IL-7 levels and improved radiographic fibrosis scores.

After adjusting for treatment arm and baseline severity of ILD, significant associations remained between change in radiographic fibrosis score and IL-1, MCP-3, surfactant protein C, IL-7 and CCL-5 levels.

“Biomarker discovery is really central to our ability to risk stratify patients with SSc-ILD,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees. “Understanding how biomarkers predict outcomes in treated and untreated patients may improve personalized medicine to patients with SSc-ILD and could also reveal novel treatment targets.”

Dr. van Laar said in an interview that this study’s biggest strength lay in its large sample size and in the comprehensiveness of the biomarkers studied.

“The findings are interesting from a research perspective and potentially relevant for clinical practice, but the utility of measuring biomarkers in BAL should be further studied for predictive value on clinical endpoints,” Dr. van Laar said. “BAL is an invasive procedure [that] is not routinely done.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkmann has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim and received grant funding from Corbus, Forbius, and Kadmon. Dr. van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

Quantitative assessment of the extent of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis and levels of certain proteins in bronchoalveolar lavage samples have potential for predicting mortality and disease progression, according to two analyses of data from the Scleroderma Lung Study I and II.

The analyses, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, aim to improve current prognostic abilities in patients with systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). Although forced vital capacity is commonly used as a biomarker for survival in many SSc-ILD trials, other factors can affect FVC, such as respiratory muscle weakness and skin fibrosis. Further, FVC correlates poorly with patient-reported outcomes, explained first author Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, director of the scleroderma program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the founder and codirector of the UCLA connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program.

Dr. Volkmann presented two studies that investigated the potential of radiographic and protein biomarkers for predicting mortality and identifying patients at risk for ILD progression. The biomarkers may also help to identify patients who would benefit most from immunosuppressive therapy.

The first study found that tracking the quantitative extent of ILD (QILD) over time with high-resolution CT (HRCT) predicted poorer outcomes and could therefore act as a surrogate endpoint for mortality among patients with SSc-ILD. The other study identified associations between specific proteins from bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and the likelihood of ILD progression, although some associations were treatment dependent.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), who was not involved in the study, found the results intriguing and noted the importance of further validation in research before these biomarkers are considered for clinical use.

“It would be wonderful if we can tailor therapy based on BAL biomarkers in the future, as clinicians often struggle to decide on selection, timing, and duration of immunosuppressive treatment,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “This has become even more relevant with the introduction of new drugs such as nintedanib.”
 

Extent of ILD progression as a surrogate for mortality

Scleroderma Lung Study I involved 158 patients with SSc-ILD who were randomly assigned to receive either cyclophosphamide or placebo for 12 months. Scleroderma Lung Study II included 142 patients with SSc-ILD who were randomly assigned to receive either mycophenolate for 24 months or cyclophosphamide for 12 months followed by placebo for 12 months.

The researchers calculated QILD in the whole lung at baseline, at 12 months in the first trial, and at 24 months in the second trial. However, only 82 participants from the first trial and 90 participants from the second trial underwent HRCT. Demographic and disease characteristics were similar between the two groups on follow-up scans.

Follow-up continued for 12 years for patients in the first trial and 8 years in the second. The researchers compared survival rates between the 41% of participants from the first study and 31% of participants from the second study who had poorer QILD scores (at least a 2% increase) with the participants who had stable or improved scores (less than 2% increase).

Participants from both trials had significantly poorer long-term survival if their QILD scores had increased by at least 2% at follow-up (P = .01 for I; P = .019 for II). The association was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline FVC, age, and modified Rodnan skin score in the first trial (hazard ratio, 1.98; P = .089), but it remained significant for participants of the second trial (HR, 3.86; P = .014).

“Data from two independent trial cohorts demonstrated that radiographic progression of SSc-ILD at 1 and 2 years is associated with worse long-term survival,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees.

However, FVC did not significantly predict risk of mortality in either trial.

“To me, the most striking finding from the first study was that change in QILD performed better as a predictor of survival than change in FVC,” Dr. van Laar said in an interview. “This indicates QILD is fit for purpose and worth including in future clinical trials.”

Limitations of the study included lack of HRCT for all participants in the trials and the difference in timing (1 year and 2 years) of HRCT assessment between the two trials. The greater hazard ratio for worsened QILD in the second trial may suggest that assessment at 2 years provides more reliable data as a biomarker, Dr. Volkmann said.

“QILD may represent a better proxy for how a patient feels, functions, and survives than FVC,” she said.
 

Treatment-dependent biomarkers for worsening lung fibrosis

In the second study, the researchers looked for any associations between changes in the radiographic extent of SSc-ILD and 68 proteins from BAL.

“Being able to risk-stratify patients with interstitial lung disease at the time of diagnosis and predict which patients are likely to have a stable versus progressive disease course is critical for making important treatment decisions for these patients,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees.

The second study she presented involved Scleroderma Lung Study I. Of the 158 participants, 144 underwent a bronchoscopy, yielding BAL protein samples from 103 participants. The researchers determined the extent of radiographic fibrosis in the whole lung with quantitative imaging analysis of HRCT of the chest at baseline and 12 months.

Although the researchers identified several statistically significant associations between certain proteins and changes in radiographic fibrosis, “baseline protein levels were differentially associated with the course of ILD based on treatment status,” she told attendees.

For example, increased levels of the following proteins were linked to poor radiographic fibrosis scores for patients who received placebo:

• Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
• Interleukin-1
• Monocyte chemoattractant protein–3
• Chemokine ligand–5
• Transforming growth factor–beta
• Hepatocyte growth factor
• Stem cell factor
• IL-4
• TGF-alpha

Yet increases in these proteins predicted improvement in radiographic fibrosis in patients who had taken cyclophosphamide.

Independently of treatment, the researchers also identified an association between higher levels of fractalkine and poorer radiographic fibrosis scores and between higher IL-7 levels and improved radiographic fibrosis scores.

After adjusting for treatment arm and baseline severity of ILD, significant associations remained between change in radiographic fibrosis score and IL-1, MCP-3, surfactant protein C, IL-7 and CCL-5 levels.

“Biomarker discovery is really central to our ability to risk stratify patients with SSc-ILD,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees. “Understanding how biomarkers predict outcomes in treated and untreated patients may improve personalized medicine to patients with SSc-ILD and could also reveal novel treatment targets.”

Dr. van Laar said in an interview that this study’s biggest strength lay in its large sample size and in the comprehensiveness of the biomarkers studied.

“The findings are interesting from a research perspective and potentially relevant for clinical practice, but the utility of measuring biomarkers in BAL should be further studied for predictive value on clinical endpoints,” Dr. van Laar said. “BAL is an invasive procedure [that] is not routinely done.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkmann has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim and received grant funding from Corbus, Forbius, and Kadmon. Dr. van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

Quantitative assessment of the extent of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis and levels of certain proteins in bronchoalveolar lavage samples have potential for predicting mortality and disease progression, according to two analyses of data from the Scleroderma Lung Study I and II.

The analyses, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, aim to improve current prognostic abilities in patients with systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). Although forced vital capacity is commonly used as a biomarker for survival in many SSc-ILD trials, other factors can affect FVC, such as respiratory muscle weakness and skin fibrosis. Further, FVC correlates poorly with patient-reported outcomes, explained first author Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, director of the scleroderma program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the founder and codirector of the UCLA connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program.

Dr. Volkmann presented two studies that investigated the potential of radiographic and protein biomarkers for predicting mortality and identifying patients at risk for ILD progression. The biomarkers may also help to identify patients who would benefit most from immunosuppressive therapy.

The first study found that tracking the quantitative extent of ILD (QILD) over time with high-resolution CT (HRCT) predicted poorer outcomes and could therefore act as a surrogate endpoint for mortality among patients with SSc-ILD. The other study identified associations between specific proteins from bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and the likelihood of ILD progression, although some associations were treatment dependent.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), who was not involved in the study, found the results intriguing and noted the importance of further validation in research before these biomarkers are considered for clinical use.

“It would be wonderful if we can tailor therapy based on BAL biomarkers in the future, as clinicians often struggle to decide on selection, timing, and duration of immunosuppressive treatment,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “This has become even more relevant with the introduction of new drugs such as nintedanib.”
 

Extent of ILD progression as a surrogate for mortality

Scleroderma Lung Study I involved 158 patients with SSc-ILD who were randomly assigned to receive either cyclophosphamide or placebo for 12 months. Scleroderma Lung Study II included 142 patients with SSc-ILD who were randomly assigned to receive either mycophenolate for 24 months or cyclophosphamide for 12 months followed by placebo for 12 months.

The researchers calculated QILD in the whole lung at baseline, at 12 months in the first trial, and at 24 months in the second trial. However, only 82 participants from the first trial and 90 participants from the second trial underwent HRCT. Demographic and disease characteristics were similar between the two groups on follow-up scans.

Follow-up continued for 12 years for patients in the first trial and 8 years in the second. The researchers compared survival rates between the 41% of participants from the first study and 31% of participants from the second study who had poorer QILD scores (at least a 2% increase) with the participants who had stable or improved scores (less than 2% increase).

Participants from both trials had significantly poorer long-term survival if their QILD scores had increased by at least 2% at follow-up (P = .01 for I; P = .019 for II). The association was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline FVC, age, and modified Rodnan skin score in the first trial (hazard ratio, 1.98; P = .089), but it remained significant for participants of the second trial (HR, 3.86; P = .014).

“Data from two independent trial cohorts demonstrated that radiographic progression of SSc-ILD at 1 and 2 years is associated with worse long-term survival,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees.

However, FVC did not significantly predict risk of mortality in either trial.

“To me, the most striking finding from the first study was that change in QILD performed better as a predictor of survival than change in FVC,” Dr. van Laar said in an interview. “This indicates QILD is fit for purpose and worth including in future clinical trials.”

Limitations of the study included lack of HRCT for all participants in the trials and the difference in timing (1 year and 2 years) of HRCT assessment between the two trials. The greater hazard ratio for worsened QILD in the second trial may suggest that assessment at 2 years provides more reliable data as a biomarker, Dr. Volkmann said.

“QILD may represent a better proxy for how a patient feels, functions, and survives than FVC,” she said.
 

Treatment-dependent biomarkers for worsening lung fibrosis

In the second study, the researchers looked for any associations between changes in the radiographic extent of SSc-ILD and 68 proteins from BAL.

“Being able to risk-stratify patients with interstitial lung disease at the time of diagnosis and predict which patients are likely to have a stable versus progressive disease course is critical for making important treatment decisions for these patients,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees.

The second study she presented involved Scleroderma Lung Study I. Of the 158 participants, 144 underwent a bronchoscopy, yielding BAL protein samples from 103 participants. The researchers determined the extent of radiographic fibrosis in the whole lung with quantitative imaging analysis of HRCT of the chest at baseline and 12 months.

Although the researchers identified several statistically significant associations between certain proteins and changes in radiographic fibrosis, “baseline protein levels were differentially associated with the course of ILD based on treatment status,” she told attendees.

For example, increased levels of the following proteins were linked to poor radiographic fibrosis scores for patients who received placebo:

• Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
• Interleukin-1
• Monocyte chemoattractant protein–3
• Chemokine ligand–5
• Transforming growth factor–beta
• Hepatocyte growth factor
• Stem cell factor
• IL-4
• TGF-alpha

Yet increases in these proteins predicted improvement in radiographic fibrosis in patients who had taken cyclophosphamide.

Independently of treatment, the researchers also identified an association between higher levels of fractalkine and poorer radiographic fibrosis scores and between higher IL-7 levels and improved radiographic fibrosis scores.

After adjusting for treatment arm and baseline severity of ILD, significant associations remained between change in radiographic fibrosis score and IL-1, MCP-3, surfactant protein C, IL-7 and CCL-5 levels.

“Biomarker discovery is really central to our ability to risk stratify patients with SSc-ILD,” Dr. Volkmann told attendees. “Understanding how biomarkers predict outcomes in treated and untreated patients may improve personalized medicine to patients with SSc-ILD and could also reveal novel treatment targets.”

Dr. van Laar said in an interview that this study’s biggest strength lay in its large sample size and in the comprehensiveness of the biomarkers studied.

“The findings are interesting from a research perspective and potentially relevant for clinical practice, but the utility of measuring biomarkers in BAL should be further studied for predictive value on clinical endpoints,” Dr. van Laar said. “BAL is an invasive procedure [that] is not routinely done.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkmann has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim and received grant funding from Corbus, Forbius, and Kadmon. Dr. van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.

A third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine can boost antibody levels in people who previously received a solid organ transplant and had an unsatisfactory response to their first two mRNA shots, according to data from a newly published 30-patient case series.

All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.

The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
 

Third dose results

In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.

Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.

Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.

“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.

“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.

Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.

“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”

Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
 

Welcome news, but larger studies needed

“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”

He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”

Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.

Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.

“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving.  For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”

He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.

“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.

“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses.  This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
 

Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses

Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.

“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”

Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.

“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
 

Participant details

None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.

Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.

Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.