In addition to the patient’s SK, the second finding was diagnosed as a thin melanoma. The clinical appearance of SKs and nevi or melanoma can overlap. Dermoscopy is a helpful tool in distinguishing between them, even when juxtaposed in a collision lesion such as this.¹

Dermoscopy of the superior portion of the lesion demonstrated a well-demarcated brown, waxy papule with milia-like cysts, consistent with an SK. Inferiorly, the dermoscopic features included atypical pigment network, asymmetrical streaks, and blue-white veil, suggestive of melanoma or an atypical melanocytic neoplasm. A deep-shave biopsy was performed of the lower section, aiming for a narrow margin (1-3 mm) of normal skin. The biopsy confirmed a superficial spreading melanoma with a Breslow depth of 0.5 mm with 0 mitoses per high-power field.

A deep-shave biopsy was chosen over a punch biopsy because the latter would be unlikely to sample the entire lesion.

One month after the initial biopsy, a wide local excision with a 1-cm margin was performed. The planned follow-up for the patient was skin exams every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the next 4 years, and then annually for life.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

In addition to the patient’s SK, the second finding was diagnosed as a thin melanoma. The clinical appearance of SKs and nevi or melanoma can overlap. Dermoscopy is a helpful tool in distinguishing between them, even when juxtaposed in a collision lesion such as this.¹

Dermoscopy of the superior portion of the lesion demonstrated a well-demarcated brown, waxy papule with milia-like cysts, consistent with an SK. Inferiorly, the dermoscopic features included atypical pigment network, asymmetrical streaks, and blue-white veil, suggestive of melanoma or an atypical melanocytic neoplasm. A deep-shave biopsy was performed of the lower section, aiming for a narrow margin (1-3 mm) of normal skin. The biopsy confirmed a superficial spreading melanoma with a Breslow depth of 0.5 mm with 0 mitoses per high-power field.

A deep-shave biopsy was chosen over a punch biopsy because the latter would be unlikely to sample the entire lesion.

One month after the initial biopsy, a wide local excision with a 1-cm margin was performed. The planned follow-up for the patient was skin exams every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the next 4 years, and then annually for life.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

In addition to the patient’s SK, the second finding was diagnosed as a thin melanoma. The clinical appearance of SKs and nevi or melanoma can overlap. Dermoscopy is a helpful tool in distinguishing between them, even when juxtaposed in a collision lesion such as this.¹

Dermoscopy of the superior portion of the lesion demonstrated a well-demarcated brown, waxy papule with milia-like cysts, consistent with an SK. Inferiorly, the dermoscopic features included atypical pigment network, asymmetrical streaks, and blue-white veil, suggestive of melanoma or an atypical melanocytic neoplasm. A deep-shave biopsy was performed of the lower section, aiming for a narrow margin (1-3 mm) of normal skin. The biopsy confirmed a superficial spreading melanoma with a Breslow depth of 0.5 mm with 0 mitoses per high-power field.

A deep-shave biopsy was chosen over a punch biopsy because the latter would be unlikely to sample the entire lesion.

One month after the initial biopsy, a wide local excision with a 1-cm margin was performed. The planned follow-up for the patient was skin exams every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the next 4 years, and then annually for life.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

On a busy call day, Oviea (a second-year gastroenterology fellow), paused in the hallway to listen to a conversation between an endoscopy nurse and a patient. The nurse was requesting the patient’s permission for a gastroenterology fellow to participate in their care and the patient, well acquainted with the role from prior procedures, immediately agreed. Oviea entered the patient’s room, introduced himself as “Dr. Akpotaire, the gastroenterology fellow,” as he had with hundreds of other patients during his fellowship, and completed the informed consent. The interaction was brief but pleasant. As Oviea was leaving the room, the patient asked: “When will I meet the doctor”?

This question was familiar to Oviea. Despite always introducing himself by title and wearing matching identification, many patients had dismissed his credentials since graduating from medical school. His answer was equally familiar: “I am a doctor, and Dr. X, the supervising physician, will meet you soon.” With the patient seemingly placated, Oviea delivered the consent form to the procedure room. Minutes later, he was surprised to learn that the patient specifically requested that he not be allowed to participate in their care. This in combination with the patient’s initial dismissal of Oviea’s credentials, left a sting. While none of the other team members outwardly questioned the reason for the patient’s change of heart, Oviea continued to wonder if the patient’s decision was because of his race.

Beyond gastroenterology, similar experiences are common in other spheres. The Twitter thread #BlackintheIvory recounts stories of microaggressions and structural racism in medicine and academia. The cumulative toll of these experiences leads to departures of Black physicians including Uché Blackstock, MD;¹ Aysha Khoury, MD, MPH;² Ben Danielson, MD;³ Princess Dennar, MD;⁴ and others.
 

Microaggressions as proxy for bias

The term microaggression was coined by Chester Pierce, MD, the first Black tenured professor at Massachusetts General Hospital in the 1970’s, to describe the frequent, yet subtle dismissals Black Americans experienced in society. Over time, the term has been expanded to include “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults” to any marginalized group.⁵

While the term microaggressions is useful in contextualizing individual experiences, it narrowly focuses on conscious or unconscious interpersonal prejudices. In medicine, this misdirects attention away from the policies and practices that create and reinforce prejudices; these policies and practices do so by systematically excluding underrepresented minority (URM) physicians,⁶ defined by the American Association of Medical Colleges as physicians who are Black, Hispanic, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives,⁷ from the medical workforce. Ultimately, this leads to and exacerbates poor health outcomes for racial and ethnic minority patients.

Microaggressions represent our society’s deepest and oldest biases and are rooted in structural racism, as well as misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, and other prejudices.⁸ For URM physicians, experiences like the example above are frequently caused by structural racism.
 

Structural racism in medicine

Structural racism refers to the policies, practices, cultural representations, and norms that reinforce inequities by providing privileges to White people at the disadvantage of non-White people.⁹ In 1910, Abraham Flexner, commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation and the American Medical Association, wrote that African American physicians should be trained in hygiene rather than surgery and should primarily serve as “sanitarians” whose purpose was to “protect Whites” from common diseases like tuberculosis.¹⁰ The 1910 Flexner Report also emphasized the importance of prerequisite basic sciences education and recommended that only two of the seven existing Black medical schools remain open because Flexner believed that only these schools had the potential to meet the new requirements for medical education.¹¹ A recent analysis found that, had the other five medical schools affiliated with historically Black colleges and universities remained open, this would have resulted in an additional 33,315 Black medical school graduates by 2019.¹² Structural racism explains why the majority of practicing physicians, medical educators, National Institutes of Health–funded researchers, and hospital executives are White and, similarly, why White patients are overrepresented in clinical trials, have better health outcomes, and live longer lives than several racial and ethnic minority groups.¹³

The murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd and the inequitable toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black, Hispanic, and Native American people renewed the dialogue regarding structural racism in America. Beyond criminal justice and police reform, the current social justice movement demands that structural racism is examined in all spheres. In medicine and health care, acknowledging the history of exclusion and exploitation of Black people and other URM groups is an important first step, but this must be followed by a commitment to an antiracist future for the benefit of all medical professionals and patients.^14,15

Antiracism as a path forward

Antiracism refers to actions and policies that seek to dismantle structural racism. While individuals can and should engage in antiracist actions, it is equally important for organizations and government to actively participate in this process as well.



Individual and interpersonal levels

Gastroenterologists should advocate an end to racist practices within their organizations (e.g., unjustified use of race-based corrections in diagnostic algorithms and practice guidelines),¹⁶ and interrupt microaggressions and racist actions in real time (e.g., overpolicing of underrepresented groups in health care settings).¹⁷ Gastroenterologists from underrepresented groups may also need to unlearn internalized racism, which is defined as acceptance by members of disadvantaged races of the negative messages about their own abilities and intrinsic worth.¹⁸



Organizational level

Gastroenterology divisions and practices must ensure that the entire workforce, including leadership, reflects the diversity of our country. Underrepresented groups represent 33% of the U.S. population, but only 9.1% of gastroenterology fellows and 10% of gastroenterology faculty are from underrepresented groups.¹⁹ In addition to diversifying the field of gastroenterology through financial and operational support of pipeline educational programs, organizations should also promote the scholarship of URM groups, whose work is often undervalued, and redistribute power by elevating voices that have been historically absent.²⁰ Gastroenterology practices should also collect high-quality patient data disaggregated by demographic factors. Doing so will enable rapid identification of disparate health outcomes by demographic variables and inform interventions to eliminate identified disparities.



Government level

The “Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” issued by President Biden on Jan. 20, 2021, is an example of how government can promote antiracism.²¹ The executive order states that domestic policies cause group inequities and calls for the removal of systemic barriers in current and future domestic policies. The executive order outlines several additional ways to improve equity in current and future policy, including engagement, consultation, and coordination with members of underserved communities. The details outlined in the executive order should serve as the foundation for establishing new standards at the state, county, and city levels as well. Gastroenterologists can influence government by voting for officials at all levels that support and promote these standards.

Conclusion

Beyond calling out microaggressions in real time, we must also interrogate the biases, policies, and practices that support them in medicine and beyond. As Black gastroenterologists who have experienced microaggressions and overt acts of racism, we ground Oviea’s experience in structural racism and offer strategies that individuals, organizations, and governing institutions can adopt toward an antiracist future. This model can be applied to experiences rooted in misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, and other prejudices.

As a nation, we must make an active and collective choice to address structural racism. In health care, doing so will strengthen communities, enhance the lived experiences of URM physician colleagues, and save patient lives. Gastroenterologists, as trusted health care providers, are uniquely positioned to lead the way.

Dr. Akpotaire is a second-year GI fellow in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Issaka is an assistant professor with both the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington.

References

1. Blackstock U. “Why Black doctors like me are leaving faculty positions in academic medical centers.” STAT News, 2020.

2. Asare JG. “One Doctor Shares Her Story of Racism in Medicine.” Forbes. 2021 Feb 1.

3. Kroman D. “Revered doctor steps down, accusing Seattle Children’s Hospital of racism.” Crosscut. 2020 Dec 31.

4. United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana. Princess Dennar, M.D. v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, 2020.

5. Sue DW. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2010.

6. Boyd RW. Lancet. 2019 Jun 22;393(10190):2484-5.

7. AAMC. Diversity in Medicine Facts and Figures 2019. Washington, D.C., 2019.

8. Overland MK et al. PM R. 2019 Sep;11(9):1004-12.

9. Jones CP. Ethn Dis. 2018 Aug 9;28(Suppl 1):231-4.

10. Hlavinka E. “Racial Bias in Flexner Report Permeates Medical Education Today.” Medpage Today. 2020 Jun 18.

11. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada. New York: 1910. Republished: Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(7):594-602.

12. Campbell KM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 3;3(8):e2015220.

13. Malat J et al. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:148-56.

14. Kendi IX. How to be an antiracist. New York: Random House Books, 2019.

15. Gray DM 2nd et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;17(10):589-90.

16. Vyas DA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 27;383(9):874-82.

17. Green CR et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2018 Feb;110(1):37-43.

18. Jones CP. Am J Public Health. 2000 Aug;90(8):1212-5.

19. Anyane-Yeboa A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Aug;115(8):1147-9.

20. Issaka RB. JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):556-7.

21. Biden JR. Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Washington, D.C.: The White House, 2021.

On a busy call day, Oviea (a second-year gastroenterology fellow), paused in the hallway to listen to a conversation between an endoscopy nurse and a patient. The nurse was requesting the patient’s permission for a gastroenterology fellow to participate in their care and the patient, well acquainted with the role from prior procedures, immediately agreed. Oviea entered the patient’s room, introduced himself as “Dr. Akpotaire, the gastroenterology fellow,” as he had with hundreds of other patients during his fellowship, and completed the informed consent. The interaction was brief but pleasant. As Oviea was leaving the room, the patient asked: “When will I meet the doctor”?

This question was familiar to Oviea. Despite always introducing himself by title and wearing matching identification, many patients had dismissed his credentials since graduating from medical school. His answer was equally familiar: “I am a doctor, and Dr. X, the supervising physician, will meet you soon.” With the patient seemingly placated, Oviea delivered the consent form to the procedure room. Minutes later, he was surprised to learn that the patient specifically requested that he not be allowed to participate in their care. This in combination with the patient’s initial dismissal of Oviea’s credentials, left a sting. While none of the other team members outwardly questioned the reason for the patient’s change of heart, Oviea continued to wonder if the patient’s decision was because of his race.

Beyond gastroenterology, similar experiences are common in other spheres. The Twitter thread #BlackintheIvory recounts stories of microaggressions and structural racism in medicine and academia. The cumulative toll of these experiences leads to departures of Black physicians including Uché Blackstock, MD;¹ Aysha Khoury, MD, MPH;² Ben Danielson, MD;³ Princess Dennar, MD;⁴ and others.
 

Microaggressions as proxy for bias

The term microaggression was coined by Chester Pierce, MD, the first Black tenured professor at Massachusetts General Hospital in the 1970’s, to describe the frequent, yet subtle dismissals Black Americans experienced in society. Over time, the term has been expanded to include “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults” to any marginalized group.⁵

While the term microaggressions is useful in contextualizing individual experiences, it narrowly focuses on conscious or unconscious interpersonal prejudices. In medicine, this misdirects attention away from the policies and practices that create and reinforce prejudices; these policies and practices do so by systematically excluding underrepresented minority (URM) physicians,⁶ defined by the American Association of Medical Colleges as physicians who are Black, Hispanic, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives,⁷ from the medical workforce. Ultimately, this leads to and exacerbates poor health outcomes for racial and ethnic minority patients.

Microaggressions represent our society’s deepest and oldest biases and are rooted in structural racism, as well as misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, and other prejudices.⁸ For URM physicians, experiences like the example above are frequently caused by structural racism.
 

Structural racism in medicine

Structural racism refers to the policies, practices, cultural representations, and norms that reinforce inequities by providing privileges to White people at the disadvantage of non-White people.⁹ In 1910, Abraham Flexner, commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation and the American Medical Association, wrote that African American physicians should be trained in hygiene rather than surgery and should primarily serve as “sanitarians” whose purpose was to “protect Whites” from common diseases like tuberculosis.¹⁰ The 1910 Flexner Report also emphasized the importance of prerequisite basic sciences education and recommended that only two of the seven existing Black medical schools remain open because Flexner believed that only these schools had the potential to meet the new requirements for medical education.¹¹ A recent analysis found that, had the other five medical schools affiliated with historically Black colleges and universities remained open, this would have resulted in an additional 33,315 Black medical school graduates by 2019.¹² Structural racism explains why the majority of practicing physicians, medical educators, National Institutes of Health–funded researchers, and hospital executives are White and, similarly, why White patients are overrepresented in clinical trials, have better health outcomes, and live longer lives than several racial and ethnic minority groups.¹³

The murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd and the inequitable toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black, Hispanic, and Native American people renewed the dialogue regarding structural racism in America. Beyond criminal justice and police reform, the current social justice movement demands that structural racism is examined in all spheres. In medicine and health care, acknowledging the history of exclusion and exploitation of Black people and other URM groups is an important first step, but this must be followed by a commitment to an antiracist future for the benefit of all medical professionals and patients.^14,15

Antiracism as a path forward

Antiracism refers to actions and policies that seek to dismantle structural racism. While individuals can and should engage in antiracist actions, it is equally important for organizations and government to actively participate in this process as well.



Individual and interpersonal levels

Gastroenterologists should advocate an end to racist practices within their organizations (e.g., unjustified use of race-based corrections in diagnostic algorithms and practice guidelines),¹⁶ and interrupt microaggressions and racist actions in real time (e.g., overpolicing of underrepresented groups in health care settings).¹⁷ Gastroenterologists from underrepresented groups may also need to unlearn internalized racism, which is defined as acceptance by members of disadvantaged races of the negative messages about their own abilities and intrinsic worth.¹⁸



Organizational level

Gastroenterology divisions and practices must ensure that the entire workforce, including leadership, reflects the diversity of our country. Underrepresented groups represent 33% of the U.S. population, but only 9.1% of gastroenterology fellows and 10% of gastroenterology faculty are from underrepresented groups.¹⁹ In addition to diversifying the field of gastroenterology through financial and operational support of pipeline educational programs, organizations should also promote the scholarship of URM groups, whose work is often undervalued, and redistribute power by elevating voices that have been historically absent.²⁰ Gastroenterology practices should also collect high-quality patient data disaggregated by demographic factors. Doing so will enable rapid identification of disparate health outcomes by demographic variables and inform interventions to eliminate identified disparities.



Government level

The “Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” issued by President Biden on Jan. 20, 2021, is an example of how government can promote antiracism.²¹ The executive order states that domestic policies cause group inequities and calls for the removal of systemic barriers in current and future domestic policies. The executive order outlines several additional ways to improve equity in current and future policy, including engagement, consultation, and coordination with members of underserved communities. The details outlined in the executive order should serve as the foundation for establishing new standards at the state, county, and city levels as well. Gastroenterologists can influence government by voting for officials at all levels that support and promote these standards.

Conclusion

Beyond calling out microaggressions in real time, we must also interrogate the biases, policies, and practices that support them in medicine and beyond. As Black gastroenterologists who have experienced microaggressions and overt acts of racism, we ground Oviea’s experience in structural racism and offer strategies that individuals, organizations, and governing institutions can adopt toward an antiracist future. This model can be applied to experiences rooted in misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, and other prejudices.

As a nation, we must make an active and collective choice to address structural racism. In health care, doing so will strengthen communities, enhance the lived experiences of URM physician colleagues, and save patient lives. Gastroenterologists, as trusted health care providers, are uniquely positioned to lead the way.

Dr. Akpotaire is a second-year GI fellow in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Issaka is an assistant professor with both the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington.

References

1. Blackstock U. “Why Black doctors like me are leaving faculty positions in academic medical centers.” STAT News, 2020.

2. Asare JG. “One Doctor Shares Her Story of Racism in Medicine.” Forbes. 2021 Feb 1.

3. Kroman D. “Revered doctor steps down, accusing Seattle Children’s Hospital of racism.” Crosscut. 2020 Dec 31.

4. United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana. Princess Dennar, M.D. v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, 2020.

5. Sue DW. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2010.

6. Boyd RW. Lancet. 2019 Jun 22;393(10190):2484-5.

7. AAMC. Diversity in Medicine Facts and Figures 2019. Washington, D.C., 2019.

8. Overland MK et al. PM R. 2019 Sep;11(9):1004-12.

9. Jones CP. Ethn Dis. 2018 Aug 9;28(Suppl 1):231-4.

10. Hlavinka E. “Racial Bias in Flexner Report Permeates Medical Education Today.” Medpage Today. 2020 Jun 18.

11. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada. New York: 1910. Republished: Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(7):594-602.

12. Campbell KM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 3;3(8):e2015220.

13. Malat J et al. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:148-56.

14. Kendi IX. How to be an antiracist. New York: Random House Books, 2019.

15. Gray DM 2nd et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;17(10):589-90.

16. Vyas DA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 27;383(9):874-82.

17. Green CR et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2018 Feb;110(1):37-43.

18. Jones CP. Am J Public Health. 2000 Aug;90(8):1212-5.

19. Anyane-Yeboa A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Aug;115(8):1147-9.

20. Issaka RB. JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):556-7.

21. Biden JR. Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Washington, D.C.: The White House, 2021.

On a busy call day, Oviea (a second-year gastroenterology fellow), paused in the hallway to listen to a conversation between an endoscopy nurse and a patient. The nurse was requesting the patient’s permission for a gastroenterology fellow to participate in their care and the patient, well acquainted with the role from prior procedures, immediately agreed. Oviea entered the patient’s room, introduced himself as “Dr. Akpotaire, the gastroenterology fellow,” as he had with hundreds of other patients during his fellowship, and completed the informed consent. The interaction was brief but pleasant. As Oviea was leaving the room, the patient asked: “When will I meet the doctor”?

This question was familiar to Oviea. Despite always introducing himself by title and wearing matching identification, many patients had dismissed his credentials since graduating from medical school. His answer was equally familiar: “I am a doctor, and Dr. X, the supervising physician, will meet you soon.” With the patient seemingly placated, Oviea delivered the consent form to the procedure room. Minutes later, he was surprised to learn that the patient specifically requested that he not be allowed to participate in their care. This in combination with the patient’s initial dismissal of Oviea’s credentials, left a sting. While none of the other team members outwardly questioned the reason for the patient’s change of heart, Oviea continued to wonder if the patient’s decision was because of his race.

Beyond gastroenterology, similar experiences are common in other spheres. The Twitter thread #BlackintheIvory recounts stories of microaggressions and structural racism in medicine and academia. The cumulative toll of these experiences leads to departures of Black physicians including Uché Blackstock, MD;¹ Aysha Khoury, MD, MPH;² Ben Danielson, MD;³ Princess Dennar, MD;⁴ and others.
 

Microaggressions as proxy for bias

The term microaggression was coined by Chester Pierce, MD, the first Black tenured professor at Massachusetts General Hospital in the 1970’s, to describe the frequent, yet subtle dismissals Black Americans experienced in society. Over time, the term has been expanded to include “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults” to any marginalized group.⁵

While the term microaggressions is useful in contextualizing individual experiences, it narrowly focuses on conscious or unconscious interpersonal prejudices. In medicine, this misdirects attention away from the policies and practices that create and reinforce prejudices; these policies and practices do so by systematically excluding underrepresented minority (URM) physicians,⁶ defined by the American Association of Medical Colleges as physicians who are Black, Hispanic, Native Americans, and Alaska Natives,⁷ from the medical workforce. Ultimately, this leads to and exacerbates poor health outcomes for racial and ethnic minority patients.

Microaggressions represent our society’s deepest and oldest biases and are rooted in structural racism, as well as misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, and other prejudices.⁸ For URM physicians, experiences like the example above are frequently caused by structural racism.
 

Structural racism in medicine

Structural racism refers to the policies, practices, cultural representations, and norms that reinforce inequities by providing privileges to White people at the disadvantage of non-White people.⁹ In 1910, Abraham Flexner, commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation and the American Medical Association, wrote that African American physicians should be trained in hygiene rather than surgery and should primarily serve as “sanitarians” whose purpose was to “protect Whites” from common diseases like tuberculosis.¹⁰ The 1910 Flexner Report also emphasized the importance of prerequisite basic sciences education and recommended that only two of the seven existing Black medical schools remain open because Flexner believed that only these schools had the potential to meet the new requirements for medical education.¹¹ A recent analysis found that, had the other five medical schools affiliated with historically Black colleges and universities remained open, this would have resulted in an additional 33,315 Black medical school graduates by 2019.¹² Structural racism explains why the majority of practicing physicians, medical educators, National Institutes of Health–funded researchers, and hospital executives are White and, similarly, why White patients are overrepresented in clinical trials, have better health outcomes, and live longer lives than several racial and ethnic minority groups.¹³

The murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd and the inequitable toll of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black, Hispanic, and Native American people renewed the dialogue regarding structural racism in America. Beyond criminal justice and police reform, the current social justice movement demands that structural racism is examined in all spheres. In medicine and health care, acknowledging the history of exclusion and exploitation of Black people and other URM groups is an important first step, but this must be followed by a commitment to an antiracist future for the benefit of all medical professionals and patients.^14,15

Antiracism as a path forward

Antiracism refers to actions and policies that seek to dismantle structural racism. While individuals can and should engage in antiracist actions, it is equally important for organizations and government to actively participate in this process as well.



Individual and interpersonal levels

Gastroenterologists should advocate an end to racist practices within their organizations (e.g., unjustified use of race-based corrections in diagnostic algorithms and practice guidelines),¹⁶ and interrupt microaggressions and racist actions in real time (e.g., overpolicing of underrepresented groups in health care settings).¹⁷ Gastroenterologists from underrepresented groups may also need to unlearn internalized racism, which is defined as acceptance by members of disadvantaged races of the negative messages about their own abilities and intrinsic worth.¹⁸



Organizational level

Gastroenterology divisions and practices must ensure that the entire workforce, including leadership, reflects the diversity of our country. Underrepresented groups represent 33% of the U.S. population, but only 9.1% of gastroenterology fellows and 10% of gastroenterology faculty are from underrepresented groups.¹⁹ In addition to diversifying the field of gastroenterology through financial and operational support of pipeline educational programs, organizations should also promote the scholarship of URM groups, whose work is often undervalued, and redistribute power by elevating voices that have been historically absent.²⁰ Gastroenterology practices should also collect high-quality patient data disaggregated by demographic factors. Doing so will enable rapid identification of disparate health outcomes by demographic variables and inform interventions to eliminate identified disparities.



Government level

The “Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” issued by President Biden on Jan. 20, 2021, is an example of how government can promote antiracism.²¹ The executive order states that domestic policies cause group inequities and calls for the removal of systemic barriers in current and future domestic policies. The executive order outlines several additional ways to improve equity in current and future policy, including engagement, consultation, and coordination with members of underserved communities. The details outlined in the executive order should serve as the foundation for establishing new standards at the state, county, and city levels as well. Gastroenterologists can influence government by voting for officials at all levels that support and promote these standards.

Conclusion

Beyond calling out microaggressions in real time, we must also interrogate the biases, policies, and practices that support them in medicine and beyond. As Black gastroenterologists who have experienced microaggressions and overt acts of racism, we ground Oviea’s experience in structural racism and offer strategies that individuals, organizations, and governing institutions can adopt toward an antiracist future. This model can be applied to experiences rooted in misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, and other prejudices.

As a nation, we must make an active and collective choice to address structural racism. In health care, doing so will strengthen communities, enhance the lived experiences of URM physician colleagues, and save patient lives. Gastroenterologists, as trusted health care providers, are uniquely positioned to lead the way.

Dr. Akpotaire is a second-year GI fellow in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Issaka is an assistant professor with both the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, and the division of gastroenterology at the University of Washington.

References

1. Blackstock U. “Why Black doctors like me are leaving faculty positions in academic medical centers.” STAT News, 2020.

2. Asare JG. “One Doctor Shares Her Story of Racism in Medicine.” Forbes. 2021 Feb 1.

3. Kroman D. “Revered doctor steps down, accusing Seattle Children’s Hospital of racism.” Crosscut. 2020 Dec 31.

4. United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana. Princess Dennar, M.D. v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, 2020.

5. Sue DW. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2010.

6. Boyd RW. Lancet. 2019 Jun 22;393(10190):2484-5.

7. AAMC. Diversity in Medicine Facts and Figures 2019. Washington, D.C., 2019.

8. Overland MK et al. PM R. 2019 Sep;11(9):1004-12.

9. Jones CP. Ethn Dis. 2018 Aug 9;28(Suppl 1):231-4.

10. Hlavinka E. “Racial Bias in Flexner Report Permeates Medical Education Today.” Medpage Today. 2020 Jun 18.

11. Flexner A. Medical Education in the United States and Canada. New York: 1910. Republished: Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(7):594-602.

12. Campbell KM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 3;3(8):e2015220.

13. Malat J et al. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Feb;199:148-56.

14. Kendi IX. How to be an antiracist. New York: Random House Books, 2019.

15. Gray DM 2nd et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;17(10):589-90.

16. Vyas DA et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 27;383(9):874-82.

17. Green CR et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2018 Feb;110(1):37-43.

18. Jones CP. Am J Public Health. 2000 Aug;90(8):1212-5.

19. Anyane-Yeboa A et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Aug;115(8):1147-9.

20. Issaka RB. JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):556-7.

21. Biden JR. Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Washington, D.C.: The White House, 2021.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy and Outcomes. By Dr. Rank, et al.

Long-term Benefits of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD Patients: A 2-Year Follow-up Study. By Dr. A. Yohannes, et al.



Impact of Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. E. Cano, et al.



Leadership Essentials for the Chest Physician: Models, Attributes, and Styles. By Dr. J. K. Stoller.



Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. D. Jiménez, et al.



Disparities in Sleep Health and Potential Intervention Models: A Focused Review. By Dr. S. Sharma, et al.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy and Outcomes. By Dr. Rank, et al.

Long-term Benefits of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD Patients: A 2-Year Follow-up Study. By Dr. A. Yohannes, et al.



Impact of Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. E. Cano, et al.



Leadership Essentials for the Chest Physician: Models, Attributes, and Styles. By Dr. J. K. Stoller.



Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. D. Jiménez, et al.



Disparities in Sleep Health and Potential Intervention Models: A Focused Review. By Dr. S. Sharma, et al.

Adherence to Asthma Biologics: Implications for Patient Selection, Step Therapy and Outcomes. By Dr. Rank, et al.

Long-term Benefits of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD Patients: A 2-Year Follow-up Study. By Dr. A. Yohannes, et al.



Impact of Corticosteroids in COVID-19 Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. E. Cano, et al.



Leadership Essentials for the Chest Physician: Models, Attributes, and Styles. By Dr. J. K. Stoller.



Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Bleeding Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. By Dr. D. Jiménez, et al.



Disparities in Sleep Health and Potential Intervention Models: A Focused Review. By Dr. S. Sharma, et al.

CHEST is excited to announce that CHEST 2021 will be held in Orlando, Florida, from October 17-21 at the Orange County Convention Center. CHEST 2021 will be offered as both an in-person and online experience. Since travel restrictions remain unknown, CHEST is working to ensure that everyone has access to the same top-tier learning – wherever they are.

“Learning together as a community is an important aspect of the CHEST annual meeting. Whether we are face-to-face or online, the knowledge gained from expert presenters, simulations and games, and talking with one another can’t be duplicated elsewhere. In whatever way you can attend, join us at CHEST 2021 to discuss the critically relevant topics affecting our patients and chest medicine,” said CHEST President Steve Simpson, MD, FCCP.

It is also essential that those who cannot travel can still avail themselves of the engaging and interactive learning offered at the CHEST conference. Everyone – whether online or in-person – will be able to experience the meeting in real-time, including expert faculty presentations, simulated learning experiences, gaming, and more.
 

What to expect

Through bite-sized, immersive learning, experts in the field will cover the latest updates in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. CHEST 2021 offers you the opportunity to learn from a diverse set of knowledgeable educators representing different viewpoints and experiences.

Team-based learning is an indispensable component of the annual meeting. The activities support collaborative discovery and help you build relationships with your peers. Known for its development of simulation courses, at CHEST 2021, you can take part in the latest in “hands-on” learning. In addition, gaming will allow for friendly competition among colleagues, whether playing from home or on-site.
 

Getting involved

Make your mark by submitting your original abstracts and case reports to be presented at CHEST 2021. Because of the past year’s challenges, new discoveries were made in the treatment and approaches to managing chest medicine diseases. This work is important and will inform the way patients receive care in the future.

Showcase COVID-19 research, among other topics you are working on, for a chance to share your findings with colleagues, gain feedback from expert faculty, collaborate with other professionals in the field, and expand your professional portfolio. The deadline to submit is April 28. [link]
 

Keeping safe

It’s been a long time since in-person conferences were possible. CHEST is closely monitoring the status of the pandemic throughout the planning process. The Orange County Convention Center was selected because the venue is large enough to support social distancing. The CHEST team is establishing protocols that limit the number of individuals in a space, promote good traffic flow, require the wearing of masks, and other safety measures. All on-site participants and CHEST support staff will be required to attest to having received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend.

Continue to watch for more information. Registration for CHEST 2021 will open in May. We’ve missed you, and we look forward to seeing you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20.

CHEST is excited to announce that CHEST 2021 will be held in Orlando, Florida, from October 17-21 at the Orange County Convention Center. CHEST 2021 will be offered as both an in-person and online experience. Since travel restrictions remain unknown, CHEST is working to ensure that everyone has access to the same top-tier learning – wherever they are.

“Learning together as a community is an important aspect of the CHEST annual meeting. Whether we are face-to-face or online, the knowledge gained from expert presenters, simulations and games, and talking with one another can’t be duplicated elsewhere. In whatever way you can attend, join us at CHEST 2021 to discuss the critically relevant topics affecting our patients and chest medicine,” said CHEST President Steve Simpson, MD, FCCP.

It is also essential that those who cannot travel can still avail themselves of the engaging and interactive learning offered at the CHEST conference. Everyone – whether online or in-person – will be able to experience the meeting in real-time, including expert faculty presentations, simulated learning experiences, gaming, and more.
 

What to expect

Through bite-sized, immersive learning, experts in the field will cover the latest updates in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. CHEST 2021 offers you the opportunity to learn from a diverse set of knowledgeable educators representing different viewpoints and experiences.

Team-based learning is an indispensable component of the annual meeting. The activities support collaborative discovery and help you build relationships with your peers. Known for its development of simulation courses, at CHEST 2021, you can take part in the latest in “hands-on” learning. In addition, gaming will allow for friendly competition among colleagues, whether playing from home or on-site.
 

Getting involved

Make your mark by submitting your original abstracts and case reports to be presented at CHEST 2021. Because of the past year’s challenges, new discoveries were made in the treatment and approaches to managing chest medicine diseases. This work is important and will inform the way patients receive care in the future.

Showcase COVID-19 research, among other topics you are working on, for a chance to share your findings with colleagues, gain feedback from expert faculty, collaborate with other professionals in the field, and expand your professional portfolio. The deadline to submit is April 28. [link]
 

Keeping safe

It’s been a long time since in-person conferences were possible. CHEST is closely monitoring the status of the pandemic throughout the planning process. The Orange County Convention Center was selected because the venue is large enough to support social distancing. The CHEST team is establishing protocols that limit the number of individuals in a space, promote good traffic flow, require the wearing of masks, and other safety measures. All on-site participants and CHEST support staff will be required to attest to having received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend.

Continue to watch for more information. Registration for CHEST 2021 will open in May. We’ve missed you, and we look forward to seeing you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20.

CHEST is excited to announce that CHEST 2021 will be held in Orlando, Florida, from October 17-21 at the Orange County Convention Center. CHEST 2021 will be offered as both an in-person and online experience. Since travel restrictions remain unknown, CHEST is working to ensure that everyone has access to the same top-tier learning – wherever they are.

“Learning together as a community is an important aspect of the CHEST annual meeting. Whether we are face-to-face or online, the knowledge gained from expert presenters, simulations and games, and talking with one another can’t be duplicated elsewhere. In whatever way you can attend, join us at CHEST 2021 to discuss the critically relevant topics affecting our patients and chest medicine,” said CHEST President Steve Simpson, MD, FCCP.

It is also essential that those who cannot travel can still avail themselves of the engaging and interactive learning offered at the CHEST conference. Everyone – whether online or in-person – will be able to experience the meeting in real-time, including expert faculty presentations, simulated learning experiences, gaming, and more.
 

What to expect

Through bite-sized, immersive learning, experts in the field will cover the latest updates in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. CHEST 2021 offers you the opportunity to learn from a diverse set of knowledgeable educators representing different viewpoints and experiences.

Team-based learning is an indispensable component of the annual meeting. The activities support collaborative discovery and help you build relationships with your peers. Known for its development of simulation courses, at CHEST 2021, you can take part in the latest in “hands-on” learning. In addition, gaming will allow for friendly competition among colleagues, whether playing from home or on-site.
 

Getting involved

Make your mark by submitting your original abstracts and case reports to be presented at CHEST 2021. Because of the past year’s challenges, new discoveries were made in the treatment and approaches to managing chest medicine diseases. This work is important and will inform the way patients receive care in the future.

Showcase COVID-19 research, among other topics you are working on, for a chance to share your findings with colleagues, gain feedback from expert faculty, collaborate with other professionals in the field, and expand your professional portfolio. The deadline to submit is April 28. [link]
 

Keeping safe

It’s been a long time since in-person conferences were possible. CHEST is closely monitoring the status of the pandemic throughout the planning process. The Orange County Convention Center was selected because the venue is large enough to support social distancing. The CHEST team is establishing protocols that limit the number of individuals in a space, promote good traffic flow, require the wearing of masks, and other safety measures. All on-site participants and CHEST support staff will be required to attest to having received a COVID-19 vaccination to attend.

Continue to watch for more information. Registration for CHEST 2021 will open in May. We’ve missed you, and we look forward to seeing you in Orlando, Florida, October 17-20.

Patients with COPD may develop sustained hypercapnia, often defined as an awake arterial PCO2 of >45 mm Hg. Other synonymous terms include alveolar hypoventilation or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, noting that the specific terminology used may reflect local practice, an assessment of patient severity, or specific insurance requirements. Regardless, available data suggest that hypercapnic COPD patients are at high risk for adverse health outcomes (Yang H, et al. BMJ Open. 2015;5[12]:e008909). Moreover, there appears to have been a growing interest in this population driven by a focus on reducing COPD hospitalizations, increasing recognition of sleep disordered breathing, and progress in potential therapeutic strategies.

There are a number of factors that might drive COPD patients to develop hypercapnia. Lower airway obstruction, expiratory flow limitation and air trapping cause mechanical load on breathing, as well as a trade-off between time spent in inspiration vs prolonged expiration. The function of the diaphragm is impacted by hyperinflation leading to mal-positioning, as well as possibly by local and/or systemic myopathy. The net result is often decreased overall minute ventilation. In terms of gas exchange, increased dead space and ventilation-perfusion mismatching leads to reduced efficiency of ventilation towards CO₂ removal. Breathing changes during sleep play an important role, as evidenced by worsened hypercapnia during sleep that can drive chronic CO₂ retention (O’Donoghue FJ, et al. Eur Respir J. 2003;21[6]:977). The pathogenesis includes reduced central respiratory drive, increased upper airway resistance and/or obstructive hypopneas and apneas, and respiratory muscle atonia, particularly during REM sleep. The extent to which each of these factors contributes to hypercapnia varies across individual patients, in accordance with the known substantial heterogeneity of COPD. Regardless of underlying traits, patients with COPD who develop hypercapnia have sufficiently severe perturbations to disrupt the normally tight control over CO₂ homeostasis.

Nocturnal home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been examined as a potential therapeutic strategy for patients with hypercapnic COPD. While older studies have not shown consistent benefits, more recent evidence suggests that NIV can reduce hospitalizations, improve quality of life, and potentially reduce mortality among those with hypercapnic COPD. Accordingly, the American Thoracic Society recently released a clinical practice guideline regarding the use of NIV in patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD (Macrea M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87). Recommendations from the guideline included:

1) The use of nocturnal NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD

2) Screening for OSA before initiation of long-term NIV

3) Not using in-hospital initiation of long-term NIV after an episode of acute or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, favoring instead reassessment for NIV at 2–4 weeks after resolution

4) Not using an in-laboratory overnight PSG to initially titrate NIV

5) Targeting normalization of PaCO₂.

Although it now seems clear that efforts should be made to use NIV in COPD to decrease chronic hypercapnia, there are a number of important questions that remain, particularly surrounding the topic of concurrent OSA, titration, and devices:

• What is the appropriate approach towards patients with suspected concurrent OSA? Most studies of NIV have excluded patients with OSA, or otherwise at higher risk of OSA. Nonetheless, such patients may be common, both based on continued high prevalence of obesity, as well as the potential role that upper airway obstructive events may play towards elevations in CO₂ (Resta O., et al. Sleep Breath. 2002;6[1]:11-8). COPD epidemiological studies indicate obesity as a risk factor for several poor outcomes, including severe COPD exacerbation (Lambert AA, et al. Chest. 2017;151[1]:68-77), while studies of COPD and OSA suggest that the presence of hypercapnia defines a high-risk group Jaoude P., Lung. 2014;192:215). Recognizing the potential importance of OSA in this group, ATS guidelines recommend that a general questionnaire-based screening be performed. If screening is positive, the implication would be to perform diagnostic polysomnography to confirm the diagnosis of OSA. However, this may be a challenge for chronically ill patients, and likely would result in delays in NIV initiation. Of note, emerging evidence suggests that home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) might have reasonable accuracy in this group, which may facilitate formal diagnosis. Other concerns in this area include the lack of questionnaire validation in COPD patients.

• Should patients with OSA be managed differently than those without OSA? A diagnosis of OSA might impact several subsequent management decisions related to appropriate NIV therapy and titration. Patients with OSA have increased upper airway collapsibility, which might necessitate higher EPAP support than the minimal EPAP used in NIV trials with non-OSA patients (often fixed at 4 cm water). Potential strategies for optimizing EPAP include use of an NIV device with auto-titrating EPAP, titration in the sleep laboratory (discussed below), or outpatient titration based on clinical parameters and subsequent device download follow-up. On the other hand, one might consider all patients to be at risk for upper airway obstruction and need for additional EPAP titration, which would obviate the need for OSA diagnostic testing.

• What is the role of the sleep laboratory towards successful titration? The inpatient hospital setting has been the traditional site to initiate home NIV in some institutions but is highly resource intensive and increasingly impractical in many health systems. On the other hand, advances in home remote device monitoring now provide the clinician with the ability to examine daily usage, estimated leak, tidal volumes, respiratory rate, and other parameters – often reported as recently as the prior night. In addition, setting changes can be made via these remote monitoring tools (for nonventilator devices), allowing titration to be performed over time on outpatients. Several studies support the effectiveness of this approach over hospital titration in neuromuscular disease and now in COPD (Duiverman ML, et al. Thorax. 2020;75[3]:244-52). Similarly, data suggest that titration under polysomnographic guidance might not be necessary (Patout M, Arbane G, Cuvelier A, Muir JF, Hart N, Murphy PB. Polysomnography versus limited respiratory monitoring and nurse-led titration to optimize non-invasive ventilation set-up: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Thorax. 2019;74:83-86).

Limitations towards the sleep lab as the site of initial titration include waiting time, cost and insurance coverage, and the need to accommodate issues such as impaired mobility or reliance on a caretaker. In addition, titration goals must be clearly outlined in protocols and via staff training specific to NIV. The sleep laboratory may be most appropriately utilized in the minority of patients in whom outpatient titration is unsuccessful. Relatively common issues that might be best addressed in the lab setting include excessive mask leaks, residual apneas and hypopneas, failure to control CO₂, or other sleep complaints. In general, studies should probably be focused primarily on titrating EPAP to alleviate upper airway obstructive events. The goals in terms of IPAP titration (or ventilation titration, in the case of “VAPS” modes) are less clear, and overly aggressive increases may complicate the picture with excessive leaks or airway obstruction due to glottic closure. Attempting to accomplish “too much” often leads to a study with limited utility. In contrast, simply performing the study in the patient’s home settings can provide useful diagnostic information regarding the problem one is trying to solve.

• When and where should one initiate NIV following a severe COPD exacerbation? In contrast to the ATS guidelines, the European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest that patients recovering from severe COPD exacerbations be initiated on NIV during that hospitalization, noting that this is a group at high risk for early rehospitalization and mortality (Ergan B, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019;54[3]:1901003). ATS guidelines had the concern of unnecessary start of NIV in those who might normalize their CO₂ after recovery, and the possibility of prolonging hospitalizations for titration. For the clinician, the decision will probably be individualized based on risk and available resources. For patients with frequent ICU admissions and/or difficulty with close outpatient follow-up, earlier NIV initiation is certainly a reasonable approach, but adherence and effectiveness remains a concern and, thus, more data are needed.

• Which patients should receive a bedside respiratory assist device (RAD, i.e., BIPAP machine) vs. a noninvasive ventilator? Two classes of devices can be used for home NIV. While both can provide similar positive pressure ventilation, ventilators are designed as life support with alarms and batteries, and may have modes not otherwise available (e.g., auto-titrating EPAP). On the other hand, RAD devices are more convenient for patients and less expensive, but difficult qualification requirements (particularly for devices capable of Bilevel ST or VAPS) have likely resulted in their underutilization. CHEST is spearheading an effort to reconsider Medicare coverage determinations (current rules are from 1998), which will hopefully better align device qualification requirements with emerging evidence regarding patient needs and preferences.

Home non-invasive ventilation can improve outcomes in these high-risk patients with hypercapnic COPD, and the new clinical practice guidelines are an important step in outlining appropriate management. Further progress is needed to delineate an individualized approach based on underlying patient pathophysiology, COPD manifestations/phenotypes, and systems-based practice considerations.

Dr. Orr is Assistant Professor, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, UC San Diego.

Patients with COPD may develop sustained hypercapnia, often defined as an awake arterial PCO2 of >45 mm Hg. Other synonymous terms include alveolar hypoventilation or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, noting that the specific terminology used may reflect local practice, an assessment of patient severity, or specific insurance requirements. Regardless, available data suggest that hypercapnic COPD patients are at high risk for adverse health outcomes (Yang H, et al. BMJ Open. 2015;5[12]:e008909). Moreover, there appears to have been a growing interest in this population driven by a focus on reducing COPD hospitalizations, increasing recognition of sleep disordered breathing, and progress in potential therapeutic strategies.

There are a number of factors that might drive COPD patients to develop hypercapnia. Lower airway obstruction, expiratory flow limitation and air trapping cause mechanical load on breathing, as well as a trade-off between time spent in inspiration vs prolonged expiration. The function of the diaphragm is impacted by hyperinflation leading to mal-positioning, as well as possibly by local and/or systemic myopathy. The net result is often decreased overall minute ventilation. In terms of gas exchange, increased dead space and ventilation-perfusion mismatching leads to reduced efficiency of ventilation towards CO₂ removal. Breathing changes during sleep play an important role, as evidenced by worsened hypercapnia during sleep that can drive chronic CO₂ retention (O’Donoghue FJ, et al. Eur Respir J. 2003;21[6]:977). The pathogenesis includes reduced central respiratory drive, increased upper airway resistance and/or obstructive hypopneas and apneas, and respiratory muscle atonia, particularly during REM sleep. The extent to which each of these factors contributes to hypercapnia varies across individual patients, in accordance with the known substantial heterogeneity of COPD. Regardless of underlying traits, patients with COPD who develop hypercapnia have sufficiently severe perturbations to disrupt the normally tight control over CO₂ homeostasis.

Nocturnal home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been examined as a potential therapeutic strategy for patients with hypercapnic COPD. While older studies have not shown consistent benefits, more recent evidence suggests that NIV can reduce hospitalizations, improve quality of life, and potentially reduce mortality among those with hypercapnic COPD. Accordingly, the American Thoracic Society recently released a clinical practice guideline regarding the use of NIV in patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD (Macrea M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87). Recommendations from the guideline included:

1) The use of nocturnal NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD

2) Screening for OSA before initiation of long-term NIV

3) Not using in-hospital initiation of long-term NIV after an episode of acute or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, favoring instead reassessment for NIV at 2–4 weeks after resolution

4) Not using an in-laboratory overnight PSG to initially titrate NIV

5) Targeting normalization of PaCO₂.

Although it now seems clear that efforts should be made to use NIV in COPD to decrease chronic hypercapnia, there are a number of important questions that remain, particularly surrounding the topic of concurrent OSA, titration, and devices:

• What is the appropriate approach towards patients with suspected concurrent OSA? Most studies of NIV have excluded patients with OSA, or otherwise at higher risk of OSA. Nonetheless, such patients may be common, both based on continued high prevalence of obesity, as well as the potential role that upper airway obstructive events may play towards elevations in CO₂ (Resta O., et al. Sleep Breath. 2002;6[1]:11-8). COPD epidemiological studies indicate obesity as a risk factor for several poor outcomes, including severe COPD exacerbation (Lambert AA, et al. Chest. 2017;151[1]:68-77), while studies of COPD and OSA suggest that the presence of hypercapnia defines a high-risk group Jaoude P., Lung. 2014;192:215). Recognizing the potential importance of OSA in this group, ATS guidelines recommend that a general questionnaire-based screening be performed. If screening is positive, the implication would be to perform diagnostic polysomnography to confirm the diagnosis of OSA. However, this may be a challenge for chronically ill patients, and likely would result in delays in NIV initiation. Of note, emerging evidence suggests that home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) might have reasonable accuracy in this group, which may facilitate formal diagnosis. Other concerns in this area include the lack of questionnaire validation in COPD patients.

• Should patients with OSA be managed differently than those without OSA? A diagnosis of OSA might impact several subsequent management decisions related to appropriate NIV therapy and titration. Patients with OSA have increased upper airway collapsibility, which might necessitate higher EPAP support than the minimal EPAP used in NIV trials with non-OSA patients (often fixed at 4 cm water). Potential strategies for optimizing EPAP include use of an NIV device with auto-titrating EPAP, titration in the sleep laboratory (discussed below), or outpatient titration based on clinical parameters and subsequent device download follow-up. On the other hand, one might consider all patients to be at risk for upper airway obstruction and need for additional EPAP titration, which would obviate the need for OSA diagnostic testing.

• What is the role of the sleep laboratory towards successful titration? The inpatient hospital setting has been the traditional site to initiate home NIV in some institutions but is highly resource intensive and increasingly impractical in many health systems. On the other hand, advances in home remote device monitoring now provide the clinician with the ability to examine daily usage, estimated leak, tidal volumes, respiratory rate, and other parameters – often reported as recently as the prior night. In addition, setting changes can be made via these remote monitoring tools (for nonventilator devices), allowing titration to be performed over time on outpatients. Several studies support the effectiveness of this approach over hospital titration in neuromuscular disease and now in COPD (Duiverman ML, et al. Thorax. 2020;75[3]:244-52). Similarly, data suggest that titration under polysomnographic guidance might not be necessary (Patout M, Arbane G, Cuvelier A, Muir JF, Hart N, Murphy PB. Polysomnography versus limited respiratory monitoring and nurse-led titration to optimize non-invasive ventilation set-up: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Thorax. 2019;74:83-86).

Limitations towards the sleep lab as the site of initial titration include waiting time, cost and insurance coverage, and the need to accommodate issues such as impaired mobility or reliance on a caretaker. In addition, titration goals must be clearly outlined in protocols and via staff training specific to NIV. The sleep laboratory may be most appropriately utilized in the minority of patients in whom outpatient titration is unsuccessful. Relatively common issues that might be best addressed in the lab setting include excessive mask leaks, residual apneas and hypopneas, failure to control CO₂, or other sleep complaints. In general, studies should probably be focused primarily on titrating EPAP to alleviate upper airway obstructive events. The goals in terms of IPAP titration (or ventilation titration, in the case of “VAPS” modes) are less clear, and overly aggressive increases may complicate the picture with excessive leaks or airway obstruction due to glottic closure. Attempting to accomplish “too much” often leads to a study with limited utility. In contrast, simply performing the study in the patient’s home settings can provide useful diagnostic information regarding the problem one is trying to solve.

• When and where should one initiate NIV following a severe COPD exacerbation? In contrast to the ATS guidelines, the European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest that patients recovering from severe COPD exacerbations be initiated on NIV during that hospitalization, noting that this is a group at high risk for early rehospitalization and mortality (Ergan B, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019;54[3]:1901003). ATS guidelines had the concern of unnecessary start of NIV in those who might normalize their CO₂ after recovery, and the possibility of prolonging hospitalizations for titration. For the clinician, the decision will probably be individualized based on risk and available resources. For patients with frequent ICU admissions and/or difficulty with close outpatient follow-up, earlier NIV initiation is certainly a reasonable approach, but adherence and effectiveness remains a concern and, thus, more data are needed.

• Which patients should receive a bedside respiratory assist device (RAD, i.e., BIPAP machine) vs. a noninvasive ventilator? Two classes of devices can be used for home NIV. While both can provide similar positive pressure ventilation, ventilators are designed as life support with alarms and batteries, and may have modes not otherwise available (e.g., auto-titrating EPAP). On the other hand, RAD devices are more convenient for patients and less expensive, but difficult qualification requirements (particularly for devices capable of Bilevel ST or VAPS) have likely resulted in their underutilization. CHEST is spearheading an effort to reconsider Medicare coverage determinations (current rules are from 1998), which will hopefully better align device qualification requirements with emerging evidence regarding patient needs and preferences.

Home non-invasive ventilation can improve outcomes in these high-risk patients with hypercapnic COPD, and the new clinical practice guidelines are an important step in outlining appropriate management. Further progress is needed to delineate an individualized approach based on underlying patient pathophysiology, COPD manifestations/phenotypes, and systems-based practice considerations.

Dr. Orr is Assistant Professor, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, UC San Diego.

Patients with COPD may develop sustained hypercapnia, often defined as an awake arterial PCO2 of >45 mm Hg. Other synonymous terms include alveolar hypoventilation or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, noting that the specific terminology used may reflect local practice, an assessment of patient severity, or specific insurance requirements. Regardless, available data suggest that hypercapnic COPD patients are at high risk for adverse health outcomes (Yang H, et al. BMJ Open. 2015;5[12]:e008909). Moreover, there appears to have been a growing interest in this population driven by a focus on reducing COPD hospitalizations, increasing recognition of sleep disordered breathing, and progress in potential therapeutic strategies.

There are a number of factors that might drive COPD patients to develop hypercapnia. Lower airway obstruction, expiratory flow limitation and air trapping cause mechanical load on breathing, as well as a trade-off between time spent in inspiration vs prolonged expiration. The function of the diaphragm is impacted by hyperinflation leading to mal-positioning, as well as possibly by local and/or systemic myopathy. The net result is often decreased overall minute ventilation. In terms of gas exchange, increased dead space and ventilation-perfusion mismatching leads to reduced efficiency of ventilation towards CO₂ removal. Breathing changes during sleep play an important role, as evidenced by worsened hypercapnia during sleep that can drive chronic CO₂ retention (O’Donoghue FJ, et al. Eur Respir J. 2003;21[6]:977). The pathogenesis includes reduced central respiratory drive, increased upper airway resistance and/or obstructive hypopneas and apneas, and respiratory muscle atonia, particularly during REM sleep. The extent to which each of these factors contributes to hypercapnia varies across individual patients, in accordance with the known substantial heterogeneity of COPD. Regardless of underlying traits, patients with COPD who develop hypercapnia have sufficiently severe perturbations to disrupt the normally tight control over CO₂ homeostasis.

Nocturnal home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been examined as a potential therapeutic strategy for patients with hypercapnic COPD. While older studies have not shown consistent benefits, more recent evidence suggests that NIV can reduce hospitalizations, improve quality of life, and potentially reduce mortality among those with hypercapnic COPD. Accordingly, the American Thoracic Society recently released a clinical practice guideline regarding the use of NIV in patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD (Macrea M, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[4]:e74-e87). Recommendations from the guideline included:

1) The use of nocturnal NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD

2) Screening for OSA before initiation of long-term NIV

3) Not using in-hospital initiation of long-term NIV after an episode of acute or chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure, favoring instead reassessment for NIV at 2–4 weeks after resolution

4) Not using an in-laboratory overnight PSG to initially titrate NIV

5) Targeting normalization of PaCO₂.

Although it now seems clear that efforts should be made to use NIV in COPD to decrease chronic hypercapnia, there are a number of important questions that remain, particularly surrounding the topic of concurrent OSA, titration, and devices:

• What is the appropriate approach towards patients with suspected concurrent OSA? Most studies of NIV have excluded patients with OSA, or otherwise at higher risk of OSA. Nonetheless, such patients may be common, both based on continued high prevalence of obesity, as well as the potential role that upper airway obstructive events may play towards elevations in CO₂ (Resta O., et al. Sleep Breath. 2002;6[1]:11-8). COPD epidemiological studies indicate obesity as a risk factor for several poor outcomes, including severe COPD exacerbation (Lambert AA, et al. Chest. 2017;151[1]:68-77), while studies of COPD and OSA suggest that the presence of hypercapnia defines a high-risk group Jaoude P., Lung. 2014;192:215). Recognizing the potential importance of OSA in this group, ATS guidelines recommend that a general questionnaire-based screening be performed. If screening is positive, the implication would be to perform diagnostic polysomnography to confirm the diagnosis of OSA. However, this may be a challenge for chronically ill patients, and likely would result in delays in NIV initiation. Of note, emerging evidence suggests that home sleep apnea testing (HSAT) might have reasonable accuracy in this group, which may facilitate formal diagnosis. Other concerns in this area include the lack of questionnaire validation in COPD patients.

• Should patients with OSA be managed differently than those without OSA? A diagnosis of OSA might impact several subsequent management decisions related to appropriate NIV therapy and titration. Patients with OSA have increased upper airway collapsibility, which might necessitate higher EPAP support than the minimal EPAP used in NIV trials with non-OSA patients (often fixed at 4 cm water). Potential strategies for optimizing EPAP include use of an NIV device with auto-titrating EPAP, titration in the sleep laboratory (discussed below), or outpatient titration based on clinical parameters and subsequent device download follow-up. On the other hand, one might consider all patients to be at risk for upper airway obstruction and need for additional EPAP titration, which would obviate the need for OSA diagnostic testing.

• What is the role of the sleep laboratory towards successful titration? The inpatient hospital setting has been the traditional site to initiate home NIV in some institutions but is highly resource intensive and increasingly impractical in many health systems. On the other hand, advances in home remote device monitoring now provide the clinician with the ability to examine daily usage, estimated leak, tidal volumes, respiratory rate, and other parameters – often reported as recently as the prior night. In addition, setting changes can be made via these remote monitoring tools (for nonventilator devices), allowing titration to be performed over time on outpatients. Several studies support the effectiveness of this approach over hospital titration in neuromuscular disease and now in COPD (Duiverman ML, et al. Thorax. 2020;75[3]:244-52). Similarly, data suggest that titration under polysomnographic guidance might not be necessary (Patout M, Arbane G, Cuvelier A, Muir JF, Hart N, Murphy PB. Polysomnography versus limited respiratory monitoring and nurse-led titration to optimize non-invasive ventilation set-up: a pilot randomised clinical trial. Thorax. 2019;74:83-86).

Limitations towards the sleep lab as the site of initial titration include waiting time, cost and insurance coverage, and the need to accommodate issues such as impaired mobility or reliance on a caretaker. In addition, titration goals must be clearly outlined in protocols and via staff training specific to NIV. The sleep laboratory may be most appropriately utilized in the minority of patients in whom outpatient titration is unsuccessful. Relatively common issues that might be best addressed in the lab setting include excessive mask leaks, residual apneas and hypopneas, failure to control CO₂, or other sleep complaints. In general, studies should probably be focused primarily on titrating EPAP to alleviate upper airway obstructive events. The goals in terms of IPAP titration (or ventilation titration, in the case of “VAPS” modes) are less clear, and overly aggressive increases may complicate the picture with excessive leaks or airway obstruction due to glottic closure. Attempting to accomplish “too much” often leads to a study with limited utility. In contrast, simply performing the study in the patient’s home settings can provide useful diagnostic information regarding the problem one is trying to solve.

• When and where should one initiate NIV following a severe COPD exacerbation? In contrast to the ATS guidelines, the European Respiratory Society guidelines suggest that patients recovering from severe COPD exacerbations be initiated on NIV during that hospitalization, noting that this is a group at high risk for early rehospitalization and mortality (Ergan B, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019;54[3]:1901003). ATS guidelines had the concern of unnecessary start of NIV in those who might normalize their CO₂ after recovery, and the possibility of prolonging hospitalizations for titration. For the clinician, the decision will probably be individualized based on risk and available resources. For patients with frequent ICU admissions and/or difficulty with close outpatient follow-up, earlier NIV initiation is certainly a reasonable approach, but adherence and effectiveness remains a concern and, thus, more data are needed.

• Which patients should receive a bedside respiratory assist device (RAD, i.e., BIPAP machine) vs. a noninvasive ventilator? Two classes of devices can be used for home NIV. While both can provide similar positive pressure ventilation, ventilators are designed as life support with alarms and batteries, and may have modes not otherwise available (e.g., auto-titrating EPAP). On the other hand, RAD devices are more convenient for patients and less expensive, but difficult qualification requirements (particularly for devices capable of Bilevel ST or VAPS) have likely resulted in their underutilization. CHEST is spearheading an effort to reconsider Medicare coverage determinations (current rules are from 1998), which will hopefully better align device qualification requirements with emerging evidence regarding patient needs and preferences.

Home non-invasive ventilation can improve outcomes in these high-risk patients with hypercapnic COPD, and the new clinical practice guidelines are an important step in outlining appropriate management. Further progress is needed to delineate an individualized approach based on underlying patient pathophysiology, COPD manifestations/phenotypes, and systems-based practice considerations.

Dr. Orr is Assistant Professor, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, UC San Diego.

Disaster response and global health

One step forward, two back…

No adult alive today will live to see global gender parity. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report, published December 2019, assessed four dimensions of gender inequality – health, economic opportunities, educational advancement, and political empowerment.

The report stated that despite some advances, overall global gender parity would not be reached for 99 years. The gender gap is not solely a developing nation’s problem. The US standing as the 51st in gender parity fell to 53rd during the previous 2-year period. And these numbers were before Covid COVID-19.

Disasters, including pandemics, negatively affect female subjects disproportionately. Covid COVID-19 has unmasked and exacerbated both gender and minority disparity. Global health care workers (HCW) are overwhelmingly female, exposing them to a higher risk of contagion. This risk was exceptionally high among Black, Asian, and minority ethnic HCW (Nguyen et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5[9]:E475). The gender pay gap, where women are paid 80% of their male counterparts and women of color make 63%, has led to a greater financial burden among female HCW during Covid COVID-19. Women, including HCW, provide the majority of the unpaid work, i.e., childcare, elder care, and home care. 2020 saw an unprecedented loss of women in the workplace, including health care. Both clinical practice and research have been affected. The long- term effect on women HCW careers is unknown at present. Global gross domestic product growth loss due to this decline in the female workforce is estimated at 1 trillion USD over the next decade.

Disaster and gender parity are entwined. Covid COVID-19 has revealed the persistence of inequalities that nees to be considered in future disaster planning.

Mary Jane Reed, MD, FCCP

Steering Committee Ex-Officio


 

Interstitial and diffuse lung disease

Emergence and benefits of home monitoring and telemedicine for patients with ILD

Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular monitoring with outpatient clinic visits and pulmonary function tests.

The emergence of COVID-19 forced an unprecedented transition to telemedicine and a new reliance on home monitoring. Home spirometry enables quick detection of rapidly progressive disease and is more sensitive than hospital-based spirometry in predicting prognosis (Russel, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[8]:989). Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis randomized to a home monitoring program had improved psychological wellbeing and higher patient satisfaction with individually tailored treatment decisions (Moor, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[3]:393). However, there are some inaccuracies in home monitoring. For instance, pulse oximetry is less reliable in African American patients receiving supplemental oxygen (Sjoding, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2477). It is critical to protect ILD patients from potential COVID-19 exposure given the high risk of serious complications. Telemedicine should be offered to all patients and may actually increase access to care in ILD patients, a population with disabling dyspnea and supplemental oxygen needs that requires specialist care unavailable in many geographic regions. African American patients, those older than 65, and patients with lower socioeconomic status are less willing to engage in videoconferencing (Fischer, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[10]:e2022302). It is essential that telephone visits be offered to minimize disparities in access to care. Many telemedicine platforms enable caregivers and family members to attend visits from separate locations and provide a unique opportunity to address advance care planning. In-person visits should be arranged for patients with no access to internet or telephone or those with poor medical literacy or insufficient social support to conduct a productive remote visit. Telemedicine and home monitoring have proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic and have the potential to continually increase access to and quality of care.

Rebecca Anna Gersten, MD

Steering Committee Member

Practice operations

Use of media platforms to eliminate the COVID-19 infodemic

We were shocked when we read a tweet in December 2020 from a health care worker stating, “My biggest concern is the lack of data and the quick development time. Feels like we are a bunch of guinea pigs” in reference to the new COVID-19 vaccine.

References

1. The Lancet Infectious Diseases-Editorial. The COVID-19 infodemic. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):875.

2. Tangcharoensathien V, et al. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22e19659.

3. Verified. https://shareverified.com/en/about. Accessed Feb 18, 2021.




 

Transplant

COVID-19 + lung transplant

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a dilemma for lung transplantation, with a new group of patients with refractory respiratory failure secondary to the viral illness. As transplant centers worldwide receive referrals for COVID-19 related respiratory failure, information regarding evaluation, listing, and posttransplant care continues to be published, but further research will be needed to care for this complex population. 

The first lung transplant for COVID-19 in the United States occurred at Northwestern Hospital on June 5th, 2020,and was publicized for its innovativeness. Information from their three lung transplants completed thus far includes information regarding pathologic findings of the explanted lung tissue; pulmonary fibrosis was the dominant feature, suggesting COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome with prolonged time supported by mechanical support may only be survivable with the use of lung transplant (Bharat, et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(574):eabe4282).

Women’s lung health

Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis

The newest in the line of modulator therapy, Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor), is expected to improve life expectancy and quality of life for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This evolution in therapy will shape how providers care for their patients, particularly women of reproductive age. Conventionally, women with significantly impaired lung function due to CF have been advised to avoid pregnancy due to potential complications for mother and baby. It is likely that now, with improved lung function while receiving Trikafta, more women will feel better equipped to attempt pregnancy.

Disaster response and global health

One step forward, two back…

No adult alive today will live to see global gender parity. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report, published December 2019, assessed four dimensions of gender inequality – health, economic opportunities, educational advancement, and political empowerment.

The report stated that despite some advances, overall global gender parity would not be reached for 99 years. The gender gap is not solely a developing nation’s problem. The US standing as the 51st in gender parity fell to 53rd during the previous 2-year period. And these numbers were before Covid COVID-19.

Disasters, including pandemics, negatively affect female subjects disproportionately. Covid COVID-19 has unmasked and exacerbated both gender and minority disparity. Global health care workers (HCW) are overwhelmingly female, exposing them to a higher risk of contagion. This risk was exceptionally high among Black, Asian, and minority ethnic HCW (Nguyen et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5[9]:E475). The gender pay gap, where women are paid 80% of their male counterparts and women of color make 63%, has led to a greater financial burden among female HCW during Covid COVID-19. Women, including HCW, provide the majority of the unpaid work, i.e., childcare, elder care, and home care. 2020 saw an unprecedented loss of women in the workplace, including health care. Both clinical practice and research have been affected. The long- term effect on women HCW careers is unknown at present. Global gross domestic product growth loss due to this decline in the female workforce is estimated at 1 trillion USD over the next decade.

Disaster and gender parity are entwined. Covid COVID-19 has revealed the persistence of inequalities that nees to be considered in future disaster planning.

Mary Jane Reed, MD, FCCP

Steering Committee Ex-Officio


 

Interstitial and diffuse lung disease

Emergence and benefits of home monitoring and telemedicine for patients with ILD

Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular monitoring with outpatient clinic visits and pulmonary function tests.

The emergence of COVID-19 forced an unprecedented transition to telemedicine and a new reliance on home monitoring. Home spirometry enables quick detection of rapidly progressive disease and is more sensitive than hospital-based spirometry in predicting prognosis (Russel, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[8]:989). Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis randomized to a home monitoring program had improved psychological wellbeing and higher patient satisfaction with individually tailored treatment decisions (Moor, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[3]:393). However, there are some inaccuracies in home monitoring. For instance, pulse oximetry is less reliable in African American patients receiving supplemental oxygen (Sjoding, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2477). It is critical to protect ILD patients from potential COVID-19 exposure given the high risk of serious complications. Telemedicine should be offered to all patients and may actually increase access to care in ILD patients, a population with disabling dyspnea and supplemental oxygen needs that requires specialist care unavailable in many geographic regions. African American patients, those older than 65, and patients with lower socioeconomic status are less willing to engage in videoconferencing (Fischer, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[10]:e2022302). It is essential that telephone visits be offered to minimize disparities in access to care. Many telemedicine platforms enable caregivers and family members to attend visits from separate locations and provide a unique opportunity to address advance care planning. In-person visits should be arranged for patients with no access to internet or telephone or those with poor medical literacy or insufficient social support to conduct a productive remote visit. Telemedicine and home monitoring have proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic and have the potential to continually increase access to and quality of care.

Rebecca Anna Gersten, MD

Steering Committee Member

Practice operations

Use of media platforms to eliminate the COVID-19 infodemic

We were shocked when we read a tweet in December 2020 from a health care worker stating, “My biggest concern is the lack of data and the quick development time. Feels like we are a bunch of guinea pigs” in reference to the new COVID-19 vaccine.

References

1. The Lancet Infectious Diseases-Editorial. The COVID-19 infodemic. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):875.

2. Tangcharoensathien V, et al. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22e19659.

3. Verified. https://shareverified.com/en/about. Accessed Feb 18, 2021.




 

Transplant

COVID-19 + lung transplant

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a dilemma for lung transplantation, with a new group of patients with refractory respiratory failure secondary to the viral illness. As transplant centers worldwide receive referrals for COVID-19 related respiratory failure, information regarding evaluation, listing, and posttransplant care continues to be published, but further research will be needed to care for this complex population. 

The first lung transplant for COVID-19 in the United States occurred at Northwestern Hospital on June 5th, 2020,and was publicized for its innovativeness. Information from their three lung transplants completed thus far includes information regarding pathologic findings of the explanted lung tissue; pulmonary fibrosis was the dominant feature, suggesting COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome with prolonged time supported by mechanical support may only be survivable with the use of lung transplant (Bharat, et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(574):eabe4282).

Women’s lung health

Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis

The newest in the line of modulator therapy, Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor), is expected to improve life expectancy and quality of life for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This evolution in therapy will shape how providers care for their patients, particularly women of reproductive age. Conventionally, women with significantly impaired lung function due to CF have been advised to avoid pregnancy due to potential complications for mother and baby. It is likely that now, with improved lung function while receiving Trikafta, more women will feel better equipped to attempt pregnancy.

Disaster response and global health

One step forward, two back…

No adult alive today will live to see global gender parity. The 2020 World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report, published December 2019, assessed four dimensions of gender inequality – health, economic opportunities, educational advancement, and political empowerment.

The report stated that despite some advances, overall global gender parity would not be reached for 99 years. The gender gap is not solely a developing nation’s problem. The US standing as the 51st in gender parity fell to 53rd during the previous 2-year period. And these numbers were before Covid COVID-19.

Disasters, including pandemics, negatively affect female subjects disproportionately. Covid COVID-19 has unmasked and exacerbated both gender and minority disparity. Global health care workers (HCW) are overwhelmingly female, exposing them to a higher risk of contagion. This risk was exceptionally high among Black, Asian, and minority ethnic HCW (Nguyen et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5[9]:E475). The gender pay gap, where women are paid 80% of their male counterparts and women of color make 63%, has led to a greater financial burden among female HCW during Covid COVID-19. Women, including HCW, provide the majority of the unpaid work, i.e., childcare, elder care, and home care. 2020 saw an unprecedented loss of women in the workplace, including health care. Both clinical practice and research have been affected. The long- term effect on women HCW careers is unknown at present. Global gross domestic product growth loss due to this decline in the female workforce is estimated at 1 trillion USD over the next decade.

Disaster and gender parity are entwined. Covid COVID-19 has revealed the persistence of inequalities that nees to be considered in future disaster planning.

Mary Jane Reed, MD, FCCP

Steering Committee Ex-Officio


 

Interstitial and diffuse lung disease

Emergence and benefits of home monitoring and telemedicine for patients with ILD

Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) require regular monitoring with outpatient clinic visits and pulmonary function tests.

The emergence of COVID-19 forced an unprecedented transition to telemedicine and a new reliance on home monitoring. Home spirometry enables quick detection of rapidly progressive disease and is more sensitive than hospital-based spirometry in predicting prognosis (Russel, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194[8]:989). Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis randomized to a home monitoring program had improved psychological wellbeing and higher patient satisfaction with individually tailored treatment decisions (Moor, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202[3]:393). However, there are some inaccuracies in home monitoring. For instance, pulse oximetry is less reliable in African American patients receiving supplemental oxygen (Sjoding, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2477). It is critical to protect ILD patients from potential COVID-19 exposure given the high risk of serious complications. Telemedicine should be offered to all patients and may actually increase access to care in ILD patients, a population with disabling dyspnea and supplemental oxygen needs that requires specialist care unavailable in many geographic regions. African American patients, those older than 65, and patients with lower socioeconomic status are less willing to engage in videoconferencing (Fischer, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[10]:e2022302). It is essential that telephone visits be offered to minimize disparities in access to care. Many telemedicine platforms enable caregivers and family members to attend visits from separate locations and provide a unique opportunity to address advance care planning. In-person visits should be arranged for patients with no access to internet or telephone or those with poor medical literacy or insufficient social support to conduct a productive remote visit. Telemedicine and home monitoring have proved invaluable during the COVID-19 pandemic and have the potential to continually increase access to and quality of care.

Rebecca Anna Gersten, MD

Steering Committee Member

Practice operations

Use of media platforms to eliminate the COVID-19 infodemic

We were shocked when we read a tweet in December 2020 from a health care worker stating, “My biggest concern is the lack of data and the quick development time. Feels like we are a bunch of guinea pigs” in reference to the new COVID-19 vaccine.

References

1. The Lancet Infectious Diseases-Editorial. The COVID-19 infodemic. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(8):875.

2. Tangcharoensathien V, et al. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22e19659.

3. Verified. https://shareverified.com/en/about. Accessed Feb 18, 2021.




 

Transplant

COVID-19 + lung transplant

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a dilemma for lung transplantation, with a new group of patients with refractory respiratory failure secondary to the viral illness. As transplant centers worldwide receive referrals for COVID-19 related respiratory failure, information regarding evaluation, listing, and posttransplant care continues to be published, but further research will be needed to care for this complex population. 

The first lung transplant for COVID-19 in the United States occurred at Northwestern Hospital on June 5th, 2020,and was publicized for its innovativeness. Information from their three lung transplants completed thus far includes information regarding pathologic findings of the explanted lung tissue; pulmonary fibrosis was the dominant feature, suggesting COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome with prolonged time supported by mechanical support may only be survivable with the use of lung transplant (Bharat, et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12(574):eabe4282).

Women’s lung health

Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis

The newest in the line of modulator therapy, Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor), is expected to improve life expectancy and quality of life for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This evolution in therapy will shape how providers care for their patients, particularly women of reproductive age. Conventionally, women with significantly impaired lung function due to CF have been advised to avoid pregnancy due to potential complications for mother and baby. It is likely that now, with improved lung function while receiving Trikafta, more women will feel better equipped to attempt pregnancy.

As I write, it is 1 degree Fahrenheit and dreary in Kansas City, where I live. That’s minus 17 degrees Celsius for many of you. I hope that it is cheerier and bordering on springtime when you’re reading. You’ll understand, though, why I say Happy 2021! 2020 was a humdinger in many ways.

As I write, it is 1 degree Fahrenheit and dreary in Kansas City, where I live. That’s minus 17 degrees Celsius for many of you. I hope that it is cheerier and bordering on springtime when you’re reading. You’ll understand, though, why I say Happy 2021! 2020 was a humdinger in many ways.

As I write, it is 1 degree Fahrenheit and dreary in Kansas City, where I live. That’s minus 17 degrees Celsius for many of you. I hope that it is cheerier and bordering on springtime when you’re reading. You’ll understand, though, why I say Happy 2021! 2020 was a humdinger in many ways.

CHEST Analytics has announced its new resource for members interested in serving as investigators in industry-sponsored clinical trials.

The new program, CHEST Clinical Trials Solutions, will pair members who have indicated their interest in specific research topics with companies seeking investigators. According to CHEST President Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP: “For members who would like to be involved in research and for companies that have defined distinct criteria for their studies, CHEST Analytics can pair qualifying parties to facilitate communication between researcher and sponsor. It’s a great way for young investigators to get started or accomplished members to share their experience while helping industry expedite introducing new products that improve patient care.” More information regarding enrollment will be available at info.chestnet.org/clinical-trials.

CHEST Analytics has announced its new resource for members interested in serving as investigators in industry-sponsored clinical trials.

The new program, CHEST Clinical Trials Solutions, will pair members who have indicated their interest in specific research topics with companies seeking investigators. According to CHEST President Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP: “For members who would like to be involved in research and for companies that have defined distinct criteria for their studies, CHEST Analytics can pair qualifying parties to facilitate communication between researcher and sponsor. It’s a great way for young investigators to get started or accomplished members to share their experience while helping industry expedite introducing new products that improve patient care.” More information regarding enrollment will be available at info.chestnet.org/clinical-trials.

CHEST Analytics has announced its new resource for members interested in serving as investigators in industry-sponsored clinical trials.

The new program, CHEST Clinical Trials Solutions, will pair members who have indicated their interest in specific research topics with companies seeking investigators. According to CHEST President Steven Q. Simpson, MD, FCCP: “For members who would like to be involved in research and for companies that have defined distinct criteria for their studies, CHEST Analytics can pair qualifying parties to facilitate communication between researcher and sponsor. It’s a great way for young investigators to get started or accomplished members to share their experience while helping industry expedite introducing new products that improve patient care.” More information regarding enrollment will be available at info.chestnet.org/clinical-trials.

Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, is a pulmonary/critical care physician with an extensive background in bronchiectasis and non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection and medical education. 

Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, is a pulmonary/critical care physician with an extensive background in bronchiectasis and non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection and medical education. 

Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, FCCP, is a pulmonary/critical care physician with an extensive background in bronchiectasis and non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection and medical education. 

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.

Broadening the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with a one-step screening approach does not lead to significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes, compared with a two-step approach. Investigators reported these findings in the New England Journal of Medicine after testing the two screening methods in more than 23,000 pregnant women.

GDM affects 6%-25% of pregnant women, increasing the risk of neonatal death and stillborn births. It can also lead to serious complications such as fetal overgrowth. Clinical guidelines recommend GDM screening between 24 and 28 weeks’ gestation to improve outcomes in mothers and infants. However, the scientific community has struggled to reach a consensus on testing approach.

For decades, clinicians used a two-step screening approach: a nonfasting 1-hour glucose challenge test and a longer 3-hour fasting oral glucose tolerance test to diagnose GDM; roughly 20% who test positive on this glucose challenge test require the second step. Results of a large study led to new diagnostic criteria on a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study “found a linear relationship with hyperglycemia and outcomes – the higher the glucose, the worse the outcomes,” said Teresa Hillier, MD, MS, an endocrinologist and investigator with Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest and CHR-Hawaii. The International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) made a clinical recommendation on the one-step approach, now a common screening tool in the United States.
 

A focus on rare GDM outcomes

The IADPSG fasting one-step criteria typically identifies women with milder symptoms as having gestational diabetes, a factor expected to increase diagnosis rates by two- or threefold, said Dr. Hillier. “The unknown question was whether diagnosing and treating more women would be associated with any differences in any of the multiple GDM-associated outcomes for mother and baby.”

She and her colleagues conducted a large-scale randomized trial at two Kaiser sites to assess multiple maternal and perinatal outcomes including rare but important GDM-associated outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death between the two screening methods.

They randomized 23,792 pregnant women 1:1 to the one- or two-step gestational diabetes test at their first prenatal visit. Primary outcomes included diagnosis of gestational diabetes; large-for-gestational-age infants; primary cesarean section, and gestational hypertension or preeclampsia; and a composite perinatal outcome of any stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury.

Most participants (94%) completed screening, although there was lower adherence to screening in the one-step approach. The reasons for this aren’t entirely clear, said Dr. Hillier. Convenience may be a factor; patients have to fast for several hours to complete the one-step test, whereas the first test of the two-step screening approach can be done at any time of day, and most patients pass this test.

Corroborating HAPO’s results, twice as many women in the one-step group (16.5%) received a GDM diagnosis, compared with 8.5% in the two-step group (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval, 1.79-2.11). However, for the other primary outcomes, investigators found no significant differences in incidences or unadjusted risks. Perinatal composite outcomes for the one- and two-step groups were 3.1% and 3.0%, respectively, and primary cesarean section outcomes were 24.0% and 24.6%.

In the one-step group, 8.9% experienced large-for-gestational-age infants outcomes, compared with 9.2% in the two-step group (RR, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87-1.05). Among those diagnosed with gestational diabetes, similar percentages of women in the one- and two-step groups received insulin or hypoglycemic medication (42.6% and 45.6%, respectively).

Dr. Hillier and colleagues also reported comparable results among the two groups on safety outcomes and secondary outcomes such as macrosomia incidence, small-for-gestational-age infants, and factors such as neonatal hypoglycemia and respiratory distress.

“Although we did not find increased harms associated with the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes in many more women with the one-step approach, some retrospective observational cohort studies have shown higher incidences of primary cesarean delivery and neonatal hypoglycemia with one-step screening after conversion from two-step protocols, with no substantive improvement in outcomes,” Dr. Hillier and colleagues noted.

The trial had several limitations. Adjustments made to address lower adherence to the one-step approach might not have accounted for all nonadherence differences. Another issue is the two sites didn’t use identical thresholds for the glucose challenge test in the two-step cohort. Demographically, the study lacked Black and American Indian representation.

“Moreover, the potential long-term benefits of increased diagnoses of gestational diabetes – such as the identification of more women at high risk for subsequent diabetes who might benefit from risk-reduction strategies – were not addressed by the trial,” Brian Casey, MD, wrote in a related editorial. Based on the study’s findings, “the perinatal benefits of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes with the use of the IADPSG single-step approach appear to be insufficient to justify the associated patient and health care costs of broadening the diagnosis” of GDM, added Dr. Casey, a professor with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
 

U.S. doctors unlikely to change behaviors

Most U.S. physicians favor the two-step method. This has been a huge controversy worldwide, with other countries pushing the United States to use the one-step method, Vincenzo Berghella, MD, a professor with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “I expect this study will increase the divide between the U.S. and the rest of the world,” since U.S. physicians will see no benefit to the one-step method, and continue to use the two-step method. 

It’s not surprising that GDM diagnosis incidence went up to 16.5% with the inclusion of the one-step test, compared with 8.5% with the two-step test, Dr. Berghella continued. What’s less clear, are the details of treatment among the 8% diagnosed to have GDM with the one-step test, but not the two-step test. 

These women were likely to have milder degrees of insulin resistance or GDM. Dr. Berghella, who has advocated in the past for the one-step approach, said it would be important to find out if these women, who test positive at the one-step test but would test negative at the two-step test, were treated properly with diet, exercise, and possibly insulin or other hypoglycemic agents for their mild degree of insulin resistance. The researchers concluded that expanding the definition of GDM through the one-step test didn’t make a difference. However, “it’s not just the test that will make the difference in maternal and baby outcomes, but the aggressive management of diabetes with diet, exercise, and medications as needed once that test comes back abnormal,” he said.

The randomized trial was a massive undertaking, said Dr. Hillier.

“We are still evaluating our future plans,” she added. Forthcoming subgroup analyses from the trial could further help inform clinical practice guidelines.

Dr. Hillier received a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to support this study. The investigators reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article.