TOPLINE:

A study comparing cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix of ≤ 35 mm found no significant difference between the interventions for perinatal complications. Among women with a cervical length of ≤ 25 mm, however, pessaries appeared to be less effective at preventing spontaneous preterm birth and adverse outcomes, according to the researchers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial at 20 hospitals and five obstetric ultrasound practices in the Netherlands.
• The study included 635 women with healthy singleton pregnancies between 18 and 22 weeks’ gestation and an asymptomatic short cervix of ≤ 35 mm. Participants had no history of spontaneous preterm birth.
• Women were randomly assigned to receive either an Arabin cervical pessary or 200 mg/d vaginal progesterone for ≤ 36 weeks of gestation.
• The investigators examined a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes, including  (grade, > 1), chronic lung disease,  (grade, III or IV),  (stage, > 1), , stillbirth, and death of the baby.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adverse perinatal outcomes occurred in 6% of each treatment group, and the rate of spontaneous preterm birth did not differ significantly between the groups.
• In a subgroup analysis of 131 patients with a cervical length of ≤ 25 mm, spontaneous preterm birth at < 28 weeks occurred more often in the pessary group (16% vs 4%).
• Adverse perinatal outcomes also seemed to occur more frequently in the pessary group (24% vs 12%; relative risk, 2.1 [95% CI, 0.95-4.60]), in the subgroup analysis, according to the researchers.

IN PRACTICE:

“Even though the study was not powered for the subgroup with a short cervix of ≤ 25 mm, results suggest that a cervical pessary should not be used as preventive treatment in this group,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charlotte E. van Dijk, MD, with Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers were unable to mask the treatment groups, which could introduce bias. The study’s reliance on self-reported medication adherence in the progesterone group and a lack of extra training for pessary placement might have influenced the outcomes, the researchers noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Stichting Stoptevroegbevallen, a nonprofit research foundation. An author disclosed financial ties with Merck.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study comparing cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix of ≤ 35 mm found no significant difference between the interventions for perinatal complications. Among women with a cervical length of ≤ 25 mm, however, pessaries appeared to be less effective at preventing spontaneous preterm birth and adverse outcomes, according to the researchers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial at 20 hospitals and five obstetric ultrasound practices in the Netherlands.
• The study included 635 women with healthy singleton pregnancies between 18 and 22 weeks’ gestation and an asymptomatic short cervix of ≤ 35 mm. Participants had no history of spontaneous preterm birth.
• Women were randomly assigned to receive either an Arabin cervical pessary or 200 mg/d vaginal progesterone for ≤ 36 weeks of gestation.
• The investigators examined a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes, including  (grade, > 1), chronic lung disease,  (grade, III or IV),  (stage, > 1), , stillbirth, and death of the baby.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adverse perinatal outcomes occurred in 6% of each treatment group, and the rate of spontaneous preterm birth did not differ significantly between the groups.
• In a subgroup analysis of 131 patients with a cervical length of ≤ 25 mm, spontaneous preterm birth at < 28 weeks occurred more often in the pessary group (16% vs 4%).
• Adverse perinatal outcomes also seemed to occur more frequently in the pessary group (24% vs 12%; relative risk, 2.1 [95% CI, 0.95-4.60]), in the subgroup analysis, according to the researchers.

IN PRACTICE:

“Even though the study was not powered for the subgroup with a short cervix of ≤ 25 mm, results suggest that a cervical pessary should not be used as preventive treatment in this group,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charlotte E. van Dijk, MD, with Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers were unable to mask the treatment groups, which could introduce bias. The study’s reliance on self-reported medication adherence in the progesterone group and a lack of extra training for pessary placement might have influenced the outcomes, the researchers noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Stichting Stoptevroegbevallen, a nonprofit research foundation. An author disclosed financial ties with Merck.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study comparing cervical pessary and vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in women with a short cervix of ≤ 35 mm found no significant difference between the interventions for perinatal complications. Among women with a cervical length of ≤ 25 mm, however, pessaries appeared to be less effective at preventing spontaneous preterm birth and adverse outcomes, according to the researchers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial at 20 hospitals and five obstetric ultrasound practices in the Netherlands.
• The study included 635 women with healthy singleton pregnancies between 18 and 22 weeks’ gestation and an asymptomatic short cervix of ≤ 35 mm. Participants had no history of spontaneous preterm birth.
• Women were randomly assigned to receive either an Arabin cervical pessary or 200 mg/d vaginal progesterone for ≤ 36 weeks of gestation.
• The investigators examined a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes, including  (grade, > 1), chronic lung disease,  (grade, III or IV),  (stage, > 1), , stillbirth, and death of the baby.

TAKEAWAY:

• Adverse perinatal outcomes occurred in 6% of each treatment group, and the rate of spontaneous preterm birth did not differ significantly between the groups.
• In a subgroup analysis of 131 patients with a cervical length of ≤ 25 mm, spontaneous preterm birth at < 28 weeks occurred more often in the pessary group (16% vs 4%).
• Adverse perinatal outcomes also seemed to occur more frequently in the pessary group (24% vs 12%; relative risk, 2.1 [95% CI, 0.95-4.60]), in the subgroup analysis, according to the researchers.

IN PRACTICE:

“Even though the study was not powered for the subgroup with a short cervix of ≤ 25 mm, results suggest that a cervical pessary should not be used as preventive treatment in this group,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Charlotte E. van Dijk, MD, with Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in The BMJ.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers were unable to mask the treatment groups, which could introduce bias. The study’s reliance on self-reported medication adherence in the progesterone group and a lack of extra training for pessary placement might have influenced the outcomes, the researchers noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Stichting Stoptevroegbevallen, a nonprofit research foundation. An author disclosed financial ties with Merck.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Using polygenic risk scores along with positive family histories and breast cancer-associated gene mutations improves risk stratification for breast cancer screening.

METHODOLOGY:

A polygenic risk score — a measure of an individual’s risk for a disease based on the estimated effects of many genetic variants — is not typically included alongside family histories and pathogenic variants of genes, such as BRCA1 and PALB2, when assessing a woman’s risk for breast cancer and the need for earlier or more frequent screening.

To assess the potential for a polygenic risk score to improve breast cancer risk stratification, investigators in Finland used a nationwide genetic database to calculate polygenic risk score scores for 117,252 women and then linked the scores to their breast cancer outcomes, using the country’s nationwide mammography screening program, which screens women, ages 50-69 years, every 2 years.

The researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores both alone and in combination with family histories and pathogenic variants — specifically, CHEK2 and PALB2 variants common in Finland.

The researchers also looked at how well polygenic risk scores predicted a person’s risk for any breast cancer as well as invasive, in situ, and bilateral at three timepoints: before, during, and after screening age.

TAKEAWAY:

Compared with a lower polygenic risk score (below 90%), a high polygenic risk score — a score in the top 10% — was associated with more than a twofold higher risk for any breast cancer before, during, and after screening age (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50, 2.38, and 2.11, respectively). Pathogenic variants and family histories led to similar risk assessments (HR, 3.13, 2.30, and 1.95, respectively, for pathogenic variants; HR, 1.97, 1.96, and 1.68, respectively, for family history).

A high polygenic risk score had a positive predictive value of 39.5% for a breast cancer diagnosis after a positive screening mammography, about the same as positive family history (35.5%) and pathogenic variants (35.9%). Combining a high polygenic risk score with a positive family history increased the positive predictive value to 44.6% and with pathogenic variant carriers increased the positive predictive value to 50.6%.

A high polygenic risk score was also associated with a twofold higher risk for interval breast cancer — a cancer diagnosed between screenings — and a higher risk for bilateral breast cancer during screening ages (HR, 4.71), suggesting that women with high scores may benefit from a shorter time interval between screenings or earlier screening, the researchers said.

Women with scores in the bottom 10% had a very low risk for both interval and screen-detected cancers. Those with negative family histories and no pathogenic variants did not reach the 2% cumulative incidence threshold for breast cancer screening until age 62 years, “suggesting opportunities for less frequent screens,” the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of using a breast cancer polygenic risk score for risk stratification, “with optimal stratification reached through combining” this information with family history and pathogenic variants, the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Nina Mars, MD, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The work was limited largely to people with Finnish genetic ancestry. The benefits of including polygenic risk scores in screening programs need to be confirmed in clinical trials in areas with broader genetic ancestry; several trials are underway in the United States and elsewhere.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the Cancer Foundation Finland, and others. The investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Using polygenic risk scores along with positive family histories and breast cancer-associated gene mutations improves risk stratification for breast cancer screening.

METHODOLOGY:

A polygenic risk score — a measure of an individual’s risk for a disease based on the estimated effects of many genetic variants — is not typically included alongside family histories and pathogenic variants of genes, such as BRCA1 and PALB2, when assessing a woman’s risk for breast cancer and the need for earlier or more frequent screening.

To assess the potential for a polygenic risk score to improve breast cancer risk stratification, investigators in Finland used a nationwide genetic database to calculate polygenic risk score scores for 117,252 women and then linked the scores to their breast cancer outcomes, using the country’s nationwide mammography screening program, which screens women, ages 50-69 years, every 2 years.

The researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores both alone and in combination with family histories and pathogenic variants — specifically, CHEK2 and PALB2 variants common in Finland.

The researchers also looked at how well polygenic risk scores predicted a person’s risk for any breast cancer as well as invasive, in situ, and bilateral at three timepoints: before, during, and after screening age.

TAKEAWAY:

Compared with a lower polygenic risk score (below 90%), a high polygenic risk score — a score in the top 10% — was associated with more than a twofold higher risk for any breast cancer before, during, and after screening age (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50, 2.38, and 2.11, respectively). Pathogenic variants and family histories led to similar risk assessments (HR, 3.13, 2.30, and 1.95, respectively, for pathogenic variants; HR, 1.97, 1.96, and 1.68, respectively, for family history).

A high polygenic risk score had a positive predictive value of 39.5% for a breast cancer diagnosis after a positive screening mammography, about the same as positive family history (35.5%) and pathogenic variants (35.9%). Combining a high polygenic risk score with a positive family history increased the positive predictive value to 44.6% and with pathogenic variant carriers increased the positive predictive value to 50.6%.

A high polygenic risk score was also associated with a twofold higher risk for interval breast cancer — a cancer diagnosed between screenings — and a higher risk for bilateral breast cancer during screening ages (HR, 4.71), suggesting that women with high scores may benefit from a shorter time interval between screenings or earlier screening, the researchers said.

Women with scores in the bottom 10% had a very low risk for both interval and screen-detected cancers. Those with negative family histories and no pathogenic variants did not reach the 2% cumulative incidence threshold for breast cancer screening until age 62 years, “suggesting opportunities for less frequent screens,” the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of using a breast cancer polygenic risk score for risk stratification, “with optimal stratification reached through combining” this information with family history and pathogenic variants, the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Nina Mars, MD, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The work was limited largely to people with Finnish genetic ancestry. The benefits of including polygenic risk scores in screening programs need to be confirmed in clinical trials in areas with broader genetic ancestry; several trials are underway in the United States and elsewhere.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the Cancer Foundation Finland, and others. The investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Using polygenic risk scores along with positive family histories and breast cancer-associated gene mutations improves risk stratification for breast cancer screening.

METHODOLOGY:

A polygenic risk score — a measure of an individual’s risk for a disease based on the estimated effects of many genetic variants — is not typically included alongside family histories and pathogenic variants of genes, such as BRCA1 and PALB2, when assessing a woman’s risk for breast cancer and the need for earlier or more frequent screening.

To assess the potential for a polygenic risk score to improve breast cancer risk stratification, investigators in Finland used a nationwide genetic database to calculate polygenic risk score scores for 117,252 women and then linked the scores to their breast cancer outcomes, using the country’s nationwide mammography screening program, which screens women, ages 50-69 years, every 2 years.

The researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores both alone and in combination with family histories and pathogenic variants — specifically, CHEK2 and PALB2 variants common in Finland.

The researchers also looked at how well polygenic risk scores predicted a person’s risk for any breast cancer as well as invasive, in situ, and bilateral at three timepoints: before, during, and after screening age.

TAKEAWAY:

Compared with a lower polygenic risk score (below 90%), a high polygenic risk score — a score in the top 10% — was associated with more than a twofold higher risk for any breast cancer before, during, and after screening age (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50, 2.38, and 2.11, respectively). Pathogenic variants and family histories led to similar risk assessments (HR, 3.13, 2.30, and 1.95, respectively, for pathogenic variants; HR, 1.97, 1.96, and 1.68, respectively, for family history).

A high polygenic risk score had a positive predictive value of 39.5% for a breast cancer diagnosis after a positive screening mammography, about the same as positive family history (35.5%) and pathogenic variants (35.9%). Combining a high polygenic risk score with a positive family history increased the positive predictive value to 44.6% and with pathogenic variant carriers increased the positive predictive value to 50.6%.

A high polygenic risk score was also associated with a twofold higher risk for interval breast cancer — a cancer diagnosed between screenings — and a higher risk for bilateral breast cancer during screening ages (HR, 4.71), suggesting that women with high scores may benefit from a shorter time interval between screenings or earlier screening, the researchers said.

Women with scores in the bottom 10% had a very low risk for both interval and screen-detected cancers. Those with negative family histories and no pathogenic variants did not reach the 2% cumulative incidence threshold for breast cancer screening until age 62 years, “suggesting opportunities for less frequent screens,” the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of using a breast cancer polygenic risk score for risk stratification, “with optimal stratification reached through combining” this information with family history and pathogenic variants, the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Nina Mars, MD, PhD, of the University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The work was limited largely to people with Finnish genetic ancestry. The benefits of including polygenic risk scores in screening programs need to be confirmed in clinical trials in areas with broader genetic ancestry; several trials are underway in the United States and elsewhere.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the Cancer Foundation Finland, and others. The investigators didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

There were few cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections among emergency department (ED) healthcare personnel and no substantial changes in the delivery of emergency medical care during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED healthcare personnel called Project COVERED was conducted from May to December 2020 to evaluate the following outcomes:
• The possibility of infected ED personnel reporting to work
• The burden of COVID-19 symptoms on an ED personnel’s work status
• The association between SARS-CoV-2 infection levels and ED staffing
• Project COVERED enrolled 1673 ED healthcare personnel with 29,825 person weeks of observational data from 25 geographically diverse EDs.
• The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or IgG antibody testing at baseline, week 2, week 4, and every four subsequent weeks through week 20.
• Investigators also collected weekly data on ED staffing and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Despite the absence of widespread natural immunity or COVID-19 vaccine availability during the time of this study, only 4.5% of ED healthcare personnel tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections, with more than half (57.3%) not experiencing any symptoms.
• Most personnel (83%) who experienced symptoms associated with COVID-19 reported working at least one shift in the ED and nearly all of them continued to work until they received laboratory confirmation of their infection.
• The working time lost as a result of COVID-19 and related concerns was minimal, as 89 healthcare personnel reported 90 person weeks of missed work (0.3% of all weeks).
• During this study, physician-staffing levels ranged from 98.7% to 102.0% of normal staffing, with similar values noted for nursing and nonclinical staffs. Reduced staffing was rare, even during COVID-19 surges.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the cumulative interaction between infected healthcare personnel and others resulted in a negligible risk of transmission on the scale of public health emergencies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kurt D. Weber, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, and published online in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Data regarding the Delta variant surges that occurred toward the end of December and the ED status after the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine were not recorded. There may also have been a selection bias risk in this study because the volunteer participants may have exhibited behaviors like social distancing and use of protective equipment, which may have decreased their risk for infections.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa through a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

There were few cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections among emergency department (ED) healthcare personnel and no substantial changes in the delivery of emergency medical care during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED healthcare personnel called Project COVERED was conducted from May to December 2020 to evaluate the following outcomes:
• The possibility of infected ED personnel reporting to work
• The burden of COVID-19 symptoms on an ED personnel’s work status
• The association between SARS-CoV-2 infection levels and ED staffing
• Project COVERED enrolled 1673 ED healthcare personnel with 29,825 person weeks of observational data from 25 geographically diverse EDs.
• The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or IgG antibody testing at baseline, week 2, week 4, and every four subsequent weeks through week 20.
• Investigators also collected weekly data on ED staffing and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Despite the absence of widespread natural immunity or COVID-19 vaccine availability during the time of this study, only 4.5% of ED healthcare personnel tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections, with more than half (57.3%) not experiencing any symptoms.
• Most personnel (83%) who experienced symptoms associated with COVID-19 reported working at least one shift in the ED and nearly all of them continued to work until they received laboratory confirmation of their infection.
• The working time lost as a result of COVID-19 and related concerns was minimal, as 89 healthcare personnel reported 90 person weeks of missed work (0.3% of all weeks).
• During this study, physician-staffing levels ranged from 98.7% to 102.0% of normal staffing, with similar values noted for nursing and nonclinical staffs. Reduced staffing was rare, even during COVID-19 surges.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the cumulative interaction between infected healthcare personnel and others resulted in a negligible risk of transmission on the scale of public health emergencies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kurt D. Weber, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, and published online in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Data regarding the Delta variant surges that occurred toward the end of December and the ED status after the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine were not recorded. There may also have been a selection bias risk in this study because the volunteer participants may have exhibited behaviors like social distancing and use of protective equipment, which may have decreased their risk for infections.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa through a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

There were few cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections among emergency department (ED) healthcare personnel and no substantial changes in the delivery of emergency medical care during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED healthcare personnel called Project COVERED was conducted from May to December 2020 to evaluate the following outcomes:
• The possibility of infected ED personnel reporting to work
• The burden of COVID-19 symptoms on an ED personnel’s work status
• The association between SARS-CoV-2 infection levels and ED staffing
• Project COVERED enrolled 1673 ED healthcare personnel with 29,825 person weeks of observational data from 25 geographically diverse EDs.
• The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 infection was determined using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction or IgG antibody testing at baseline, week 2, week 4, and every four subsequent weeks through week 20.
• Investigators also collected weekly data on ED staffing and the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare facilities.

TAKEAWAY:

• Despite the absence of widespread natural immunity or COVID-19 vaccine availability during the time of this study, only 4.5% of ED healthcare personnel tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections, with more than half (57.3%) not experiencing any symptoms.
• Most personnel (83%) who experienced symptoms associated with COVID-19 reported working at least one shift in the ED and nearly all of them continued to work until they received laboratory confirmation of their infection.
• The working time lost as a result of COVID-19 and related concerns was minimal, as 89 healthcare personnel reported 90 person weeks of missed work (0.3% of all weeks).
• During this study, physician-staffing levels ranged from 98.7% to 102.0% of normal staffing, with similar values noted for nursing and nonclinical staffs. Reduced staffing was rare, even during COVID-19 surges.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the cumulative interaction between infected healthcare personnel and others resulted in a negligible risk of transmission on the scale of public health emergencies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Kurt D. Weber, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, and published online in Annals of Emergency Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Data regarding the Delta variant surges that occurred toward the end of December and the ED status after the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine were not recorded. There may also have been a selection bias risk in this study because the volunteer participants may have exhibited behaviors like social distancing and use of protective equipment, which may have decreased their risk for infections.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a cooperative agreement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa through a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Although the combination of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) with bezlotoxumab was well-tolerated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), there›s no clear benefit to using both vs FMT alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial among 61 patients with IBD (20 with Crohn’s disease and 41 with ulcerative colitis) who had two or more episodes of CDI.
• All participants received a single colonoscopic FMT from a universal stool bank and were randomly assigned to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion or placebo infusion before or at the time of the FMT.
• Patients were measured for CDI recurrence, defined as presence of diarrhea and positive glutamate dehydrogenase and enzyme immunoassay toxin test results, up to week 8 after treatment.
• Researchers also looked at C difficile decolonization, defined as absence of diarrhea and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results, and changes in IBD disease activity through week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Five participants (8%) had a CDI recurrence, including four who received bezlotoxumab and one who received placebo (13% vs 3%).
• Although participants in the treatment arm had higher odds of CDI recurrence, the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• More patients who received bezlotoxumab were decolonized compared to placebo, both at week 1 (82% vs 68%) and week 12 (83% vs 72%), though the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• There weren’t any significant differences in IBD outcomes, although there were higher rates of IBD improvement among those who received bezlotoxumab (56% vs 46%).

IN PRACTICE:

“As bezlotoxumab can be used to prevent recurrence in high-risk patients during their first episode of CDI, it may be more appropriate to use these therapies early and sequentially,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online on March 19 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the sample size and inclusion of PCR-only testing for the qualifying episode.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck Sharpe and Dohme. Several authors reported consultancy fees, research grants, and advisory board member roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Although the combination of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) with bezlotoxumab was well-tolerated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), there›s no clear benefit to using both vs FMT alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial among 61 patients with IBD (20 with Crohn’s disease and 41 with ulcerative colitis) who had two or more episodes of CDI.
• All participants received a single colonoscopic FMT from a universal stool bank and were randomly assigned to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion or placebo infusion before or at the time of the FMT.
• Patients were measured for CDI recurrence, defined as presence of diarrhea and positive glutamate dehydrogenase and enzyme immunoassay toxin test results, up to week 8 after treatment.
• Researchers also looked at C difficile decolonization, defined as absence of diarrhea and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results, and changes in IBD disease activity through week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Five participants (8%) had a CDI recurrence, including four who received bezlotoxumab and one who received placebo (13% vs 3%).
• Although participants in the treatment arm had higher odds of CDI recurrence, the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• More patients who received bezlotoxumab were decolonized compared to placebo, both at week 1 (82% vs 68%) and week 12 (83% vs 72%), though the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• There weren’t any significant differences in IBD outcomes, although there were higher rates of IBD improvement among those who received bezlotoxumab (56% vs 46%).

IN PRACTICE:

“As bezlotoxumab can be used to prevent recurrence in high-risk patients during their first episode of CDI, it may be more appropriate to use these therapies early and sequentially,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online on March 19 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the sample size and inclusion of PCR-only testing for the qualifying episode.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck Sharpe and Dohme. Several authors reported consultancy fees, research grants, and advisory board member roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Although the combination of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) with bezlotoxumab was well-tolerated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), there›s no clear benefit to using both vs FMT alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial among 61 patients with IBD (20 with Crohn’s disease and 41 with ulcerative colitis) who had two or more episodes of CDI.
• All participants received a single colonoscopic FMT from a universal stool bank and were randomly assigned to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion or placebo infusion before or at the time of the FMT.
• Patients were measured for CDI recurrence, defined as presence of diarrhea and positive glutamate dehydrogenase and enzyme immunoassay toxin test results, up to week 8 after treatment.
• Researchers also looked at C difficile decolonization, defined as absence of diarrhea and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results, and changes in IBD disease activity through week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Five participants (8%) had a CDI recurrence, including four who received bezlotoxumab and one who received placebo (13% vs 3%).
• Although participants in the treatment arm had higher odds of CDI recurrence, the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• More patients who received bezlotoxumab were decolonized compared to placebo, both at week 1 (82% vs 68%) and week 12 (83% vs 72%), though the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• There weren’t any significant differences in IBD outcomes, although there were higher rates of IBD improvement among those who received bezlotoxumab (56% vs 46%).

IN PRACTICE:

“As bezlotoxumab can be used to prevent recurrence in high-risk patients during their first episode of CDI, it may be more appropriate to use these therapies early and sequentially,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online on March 19 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the sample size and inclusion of PCR-only testing for the qualifying episode.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck Sharpe and Dohme. Several authors reported consultancy fees, research grants, and advisory board member roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and eosinophil-to-platelet ratio (EPR) are significant independent predictors of adverse events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalized with acute exacerbations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Known risk factors for COPD exacerbations do not fully explain the variation in susceptibility among patients; data on potential biomarkers as predictors of COPD exacerbations are limited.
• In a prospective, observational study at a single center, the researchers examined clinical and lab data including serum CRP levels, EPR, sarcopenia, lung function, nutrition, and frailty.
• The study population included 200 adults older than 40 years with COPD who were hospitalized for acute exacerbations; 50 experienced adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both elevated CRP and low EPR were significant predictors of adverse events in adjusted analysis in patients with COPD exacerbations (area under the curve, 0.71 and 0.76, respectively).
• In a multivariate analysis, EPR and CRP, as well as sarcopenia, were significantly associated with adverse events (adjusted odds ratios, 2.33, 2.09, and 1.97, respectively).
• COPD symptom scores, frailty, and malnutrition showed predictive value in bivariate but not multivariate analysis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for these biomarkers [EPR and CRP] on admission could help identify high-risk patients who need more aggressive monitoring and treatment,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Rohankumar Gandhi, MD, of Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Jamnagar, India. The study was published online in Cureus.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of data from a single center, lack of information on nutritional interventions and counseling, and lack of data on outpatient outcomes limited the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and eosinophil-to-platelet ratio (EPR) are significant independent predictors of adverse events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalized with acute exacerbations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Known risk factors for COPD exacerbations do not fully explain the variation in susceptibility among patients; data on potential biomarkers as predictors of COPD exacerbations are limited.
• In a prospective, observational study at a single center, the researchers examined clinical and lab data including serum CRP levels, EPR, sarcopenia, lung function, nutrition, and frailty.
• The study population included 200 adults older than 40 years with COPD who were hospitalized for acute exacerbations; 50 experienced adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both elevated CRP and low EPR were significant predictors of adverse events in adjusted analysis in patients with COPD exacerbations (area under the curve, 0.71 and 0.76, respectively).
• In a multivariate analysis, EPR and CRP, as well as sarcopenia, were significantly associated with adverse events (adjusted odds ratios, 2.33, 2.09, and 1.97, respectively).
• COPD symptom scores, frailty, and malnutrition showed predictive value in bivariate but not multivariate analysis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for these biomarkers [EPR and CRP] on admission could help identify high-risk patients who need more aggressive monitoring and treatment,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Rohankumar Gandhi, MD, of Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Jamnagar, India. The study was published online in Cureus.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of data from a single center, lack of information on nutritional interventions and counseling, and lack of data on outpatient outcomes limited the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and eosinophil-to-platelet ratio (EPR) are significant independent predictors of adverse events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalized with acute exacerbations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Known risk factors for COPD exacerbations do not fully explain the variation in susceptibility among patients; data on potential biomarkers as predictors of COPD exacerbations are limited.
• In a prospective, observational study at a single center, the researchers examined clinical and lab data including serum CRP levels, EPR, sarcopenia, lung function, nutrition, and frailty.
• The study population included 200 adults older than 40 years with COPD who were hospitalized for acute exacerbations; 50 experienced adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both elevated CRP and low EPR were significant predictors of adverse events in adjusted analysis in patients with COPD exacerbations (area under the curve, 0.71 and 0.76, respectively).
• In a multivariate analysis, EPR and CRP, as well as sarcopenia, were significantly associated with adverse events (adjusted odds ratios, 2.33, 2.09, and 1.97, respectively).
• COPD symptom scores, frailty, and malnutrition showed predictive value in bivariate but not multivariate analysis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for these biomarkers [EPR and CRP] on admission could help identify high-risk patients who need more aggressive monitoring and treatment,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Rohankumar Gandhi, MD, of Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Jamnagar, India. The study was published online in Cureus.

LIMITATIONS:

The use of data from a single center, lack of information on nutritional interventions and counseling, and lack of data on outpatient outcomes limited the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy, also known as Berger disease, is a kidney disorder characterized by the deposition of IgA in the glomeruli, leading to inflammation and potential damage. It is the most common primary glomerulonephritis worldwide. Here are five things to know about IgA nephropathy.

1. Disease-modifying therapies for IgA nephropathy have become available only recently.

The past few years have brought development of the first disease-modifying therapies to reduce proteinuria for adults with primary IgA nephropathy who are at risk for rapid disease progression. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a targeted-release formulation of the corticosteroid budesonide for these patients. This formulation delivers the drug to the distal ileum, targeting Peyer patches — the site of IgA production — while minimizing the adverse effects associated with systemic corticosteroid therapy.

The FDA most recently approved sparsentan, a nonimmunosuppressive therapy that combines an endothelin type A receptor antagonist with an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, for the same indication in 2023.

In addition, several studies have reported benefits with the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in the treatment of patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk for progression, although this use is still investigational.

2. The most common sign in patients with IgA nephropathy is blood in the urine.

The most common clinical manifestation of IgA nephropathy is microscopic or gross hematuria. Hematuria is often recurrent and may follow upper respiratory tract or other infections. The presence of blood in the urine may be episodic and can vary in severity.

Proteinuria is another key feature of IgA nephropathy. It may range from mild to moderate and, in some cases, can even progress to nephrotic-range proteinuria. The level of proteinuria is an important indicator of disease severity and prognosis. Persistent and significant proteinuria may be associated with an increased risk for progression to chronic kidney disease.

3. Five histologic features are widely used to predict clinical outcomes.

The Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy, or MEST score, published in 2009, comprises four histologic features that are independent predictors of clinical outcome: mesangial and endocapillary hypercellularity, segmental glomerulosclerosis, and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy. In 2017, the IgA Nephropathy Classification Working Group added glomerular crescent formation to the Oxford classification, to form the MEST-C score.

If any of these features are seen, the prognosis can generally be assumed to be poor. Proteinuria, hypertension, elevated creatinine, and a decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate are some of the other factors that can contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with IgA nephropathy.

4. IgA nephropathy can eventually progress to end-stage kidney disease.

Progressive kidney dysfunction can occur in some individuals with IgA nephropathy. This may manifest as a gradual decline in glomerular filtration rate, leading to chronic kidney disease over time. In addition, up to 20% of patients progress to end-stage kidney disease within 10 years. The risk for renal impairment varies among individuals, and certain clinical and histologic features may influence the prognosis.

Hypertension is a common complication of IgA nephropathy. The mechanisms underlying hypertension in IgA nephropathy are complex and may involve alterations in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and salt-water balance. Controlling blood pressure is important in managing IgA nephropathy to help slow the progression of kidney damage.

5. Definitive diagnosis requires a renal biopsy.

There are currently no validated diagnostic serum or urine biomarkers for IgA nephropathy, which, according to KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes), requires a renal biopsy to make a definitive diagnosis. The characteristic finding is the deposition of IgA in the glomeruli, typically in the mesangial area. The biopsy can also provide information about the degree of inflammation, scarring, and other histologic features that help guide treatment decisions and predict outcomes.

Dr. Alper, associate professor, department of medicine, section of nephrology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy, also known as Berger disease, is a kidney disorder characterized by the deposition of IgA in the glomeruli, leading to inflammation and potential damage. It is the most common primary glomerulonephritis worldwide. Here are five things to know about IgA nephropathy.

1. Disease-modifying therapies for IgA nephropathy have become available only recently.

The past few years have brought development of the first disease-modifying therapies to reduce proteinuria for adults with primary IgA nephropathy who are at risk for rapid disease progression. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a targeted-release formulation of the corticosteroid budesonide for these patients. This formulation delivers the drug to the distal ileum, targeting Peyer patches — the site of IgA production — while minimizing the adverse effects associated with systemic corticosteroid therapy.

The FDA most recently approved sparsentan, a nonimmunosuppressive therapy that combines an endothelin type A receptor antagonist with an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, for the same indication in 2023.

In addition, several studies have reported benefits with the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in the treatment of patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk for progression, although this use is still investigational.

2. The most common sign in patients with IgA nephropathy is blood in the urine.

The most common clinical manifestation of IgA nephropathy is microscopic or gross hematuria. Hematuria is often recurrent and may follow upper respiratory tract or other infections. The presence of blood in the urine may be episodic and can vary in severity.

Proteinuria is another key feature of IgA nephropathy. It may range from mild to moderate and, in some cases, can even progress to nephrotic-range proteinuria. The level of proteinuria is an important indicator of disease severity and prognosis. Persistent and significant proteinuria may be associated with an increased risk for progression to chronic kidney disease.

3. Five histologic features are widely used to predict clinical outcomes.

The Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy, or MEST score, published in 2009, comprises four histologic features that are independent predictors of clinical outcome: mesangial and endocapillary hypercellularity, segmental glomerulosclerosis, and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy. In 2017, the IgA Nephropathy Classification Working Group added glomerular crescent formation to the Oxford classification, to form the MEST-C score.

If any of these features are seen, the prognosis can generally be assumed to be poor. Proteinuria, hypertension, elevated creatinine, and a decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate are some of the other factors that can contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with IgA nephropathy.

4. IgA nephropathy can eventually progress to end-stage kidney disease.

Progressive kidney dysfunction can occur in some individuals with IgA nephropathy. This may manifest as a gradual decline in glomerular filtration rate, leading to chronic kidney disease over time. In addition, up to 20% of patients progress to end-stage kidney disease within 10 years. The risk for renal impairment varies among individuals, and certain clinical and histologic features may influence the prognosis.

Hypertension is a common complication of IgA nephropathy. The mechanisms underlying hypertension in IgA nephropathy are complex and may involve alterations in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and salt-water balance. Controlling blood pressure is important in managing IgA nephropathy to help slow the progression of kidney damage.

5. Definitive diagnosis requires a renal biopsy.

There are currently no validated diagnostic serum or urine biomarkers for IgA nephropathy, which, according to KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes), requires a renal biopsy to make a definitive diagnosis. The characteristic finding is the deposition of IgA in the glomeruli, typically in the mesangial area. The biopsy can also provide information about the degree of inflammation, scarring, and other histologic features that help guide treatment decisions and predict outcomes.

Dr. Alper, associate professor, department of medicine, section of nephrology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy, also known as Berger disease, is a kidney disorder characterized by the deposition of IgA in the glomeruli, leading to inflammation and potential damage. It is the most common primary glomerulonephritis worldwide. Here are five things to know about IgA nephropathy.

1. Disease-modifying therapies for IgA nephropathy have become available only recently.

The past few years have brought development of the first disease-modifying therapies to reduce proteinuria for adults with primary IgA nephropathy who are at risk for rapid disease progression. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a targeted-release formulation of the corticosteroid budesonide for these patients. This formulation delivers the drug to the distal ileum, targeting Peyer patches — the site of IgA production — while minimizing the adverse effects associated with systemic corticosteroid therapy.

The FDA most recently approved sparsentan, a nonimmunosuppressive therapy that combines an endothelin type A receptor antagonist with an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, for the same indication in 2023.

In addition, several studies have reported benefits with the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in the treatment of patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk for progression, although this use is still investigational.

2. The most common sign in patients with IgA nephropathy is blood in the urine.

The most common clinical manifestation of IgA nephropathy is microscopic or gross hematuria. Hematuria is often recurrent and may follow upper respiratory tract or other infections. The presence of blood in the urine may be episodic and can vary in severity.

Proteinuria is another key feature of IgA nephropathy. It may range from mild to moderate and, in some cases, can even progress to nephrotic-range proteinuria. The level of proteinuria is an important indicator of disease severity and prognosis. Persistent and significant proteinuria may be associated with an increased risk for progression to chronic kidney disease.

3. Five histologic features are widely used to predict clinical outcomes.

The Oxford classification of IgA nephropathy, or MEST score, published in 2009, comprises four histologic features that are independent predictors of clinical outcome: mesangial and endocapillary hypercellularity, segmental glomerulosclerosis, and interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy. In 2017, the IgA Nephropathy Classification Working Group added glomerular crescent formation to the Oxford classification, to form the MEST-C score.

If any of these features are seen, the prognosis can generally be assumed to be poor. Proteinuria, hypertension, elevated creatinine, and a decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate are some of the other factors that can contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with IgA nephropathy.

4. IgA nephropathy can eventually progress to end-stage kidney disease.

Progressive kidney dysfunction can occur in some individuals with IgA nephropathy. This may manifest as a gradual decline in glomerular filtration rate, leading to chronic kidney disease over time. In addition, up to 20% of patients progress to end-stage kidney disease within 10 years. The risk for renal impairment varies among individuals, and certain clinical and histologic features may influence the prognosis.

Hypertension is a common complication of IgA nephropathy. The mechanisms underlying hypertension in IgA nephropathy are complex and may involve alterations in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and salt-water balance. Controlling blood pressure is important in managing IgA nephropathy to help slow the progression of kidney damage.

5. Definitive diagnosis requires a renal biopsy.

There are currently no validated diagnostic serum or urine biomarkers for IgA nephropathy, which, according to KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes), requires a renal biopsy to make a definitive diagnosis. The characteristic finding is the deposition of IgA in the glomeruli, typically in the mesangial area. The biopsy can also provide information about the degree of inflammation, scarring, and other histologic features that help guide treatment decisions and predict outcomes.

Dr. Alper, associate professor, department of medicine, section of nephrology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A retrospective analysis of Medicare data revealed that between 2000 and 2017, immunohistochemistry (IHC) claims associated with melanoma diagnoses grew from 11% to 51%. Rising utilization — and substantial geographic variation in practice patterns — argue for further research to optimize IHC use in the diagnoses of melanoma, according to the authors.

But with sparse guidance regarding best practices for IHC in melanoma diagnosis, concerns for appropriate use are rising, they wrote in their report, recently published in JAMA Dermatology.

Kenechukwu Ojukwu, MD, MPP, of the department of pathology and laboratory medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, and coinvestigators, searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare database for incident in situ or invasive cutaneous melanoma in patients 65 years and older and accompanying IHC claims made during the month of diagnosis through 14 days afterward.

Among 132,547 melanomas in 116,117 patients, 43,396 (33%) had accompanying IHC claims. Such claims were less common with increasing age, declining from 44% in patients aged 65-74 years to 18% in patients 85 aged years and older. Although melanoma incidence increased throughout the period studied, melanoma mortality rates remained relatively stable.

By summary stage at diagnosis, IHC utilization ranged from 29% of in situ cases to 75% of distant cases. After the researchers controlled for year of diagnosis, IHC use was statistically significantly associated with all demographic, tumor, and geographic characteristics examined, except race and ethnicity. Across all the years of the study, regional usage ranged from a low of 22% in Detroit to a high of 44% in both Louisiana and San Jose-Monterey, California. Figures for 2017 ranged from 39% of cases in Kentucky and Atlanta to 68% in New Mexico.

“Given the extensive use of IHC in clinical practice,” the authors concluded, “studies examining the resulting outcomes of IHC on different domains, such as symptom burden, quality of life, and mortality, are crucial.”

The “notable” regional variation in IHC utilization suggests uncertainty about its optimal employment in clinical practice, and, they wrote, “these findings highlight the need for research to identify where IHC provides the most value and to develop guidelines regarding the appropriate use of IHC.”

In an accompanying JAMA Dermatology editorial, Alexandra Flamm, MD, wrote, “now is an exciting time to practice dermatopathology, with an increased number of ancillary tests, such as IHC, that can be used to diagnose malignant neoplasms more precisely and to more accurately determine prognosis and therapeutic options in this age of precision medicine”.

However, added Dr. Flamm, a dermatologist and dermatopathologist at New York University, New York City, the increasing number of ancillary tests is fueling awareness of appropriate use and the importance of ensuring high-quality, value-based healthcare. “With this increased scrutiny on the appropriateness of ancillary histopathologic testing within dermatopathology,” she wrote, “the need is growing for parameters that can be used to guide when to use IHC testing and other ancillary testing.” And using dermatopathologist-developed tools such as American Society of Dermatopathology guidelines for 11 IHC tests can help ensure that appropriate medical decision-making is taken into account when creating these tools, she added.

IHC Usage Growing

“The paper confirms what I already knew,” said Whitney High, MD, JD, who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results. “Use of IHC in dermatopathology has increased substantially, and probably will continue to increase over time.” The societal burden of IHC costs represents a legitimate concern, said Dr. High, professor of dermatology and pathology and director of dermatopathology at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

“However,” he told this news organization, “the histologic diagnosis of melanoma is sometimes substantially subjective — and all physicians, including pathologists, even though they are not providing care in the physical presence of the patient, are fiduciaries.” If an IHC stain would meaningfully improve a patient’s care, he said, physicians should attempt to provide it, unless strictly disallowed by a payer. Controlling medical-care costs might be better left to professional societies to guide care standards over time, he noted.

Dr. High

A retrospective analysis of Medicare data revealed that between 2000 and 2017, immunohistochemistry (IHC) claims associated with melanoma diagnoses grew from 11% to 51%. Rising utilization — and substantial geographic variation in practice patterns — argue for further research to optimize IHC use in the diagnoses of melanoma, according to the authors.

But with sparse guidance regarding best practices for IHC in melanoma diagnosis, concerns for appropriate use are rising, they wrote in their report, recently published in JAMA Dermatology.

Kenechukwu Ojukwu, MD, MPP, of the department of pathology and laboratory medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, and coinvestigators, searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare database for incident in situ or invasive cutaneous melanoma in patients 65 years and older and accompanying IHC claims made during the month of diagnosis through 14 days afterward.

Among 132,547 melanomas in 116,117 patients, 43,396 (33%) had accompanying IHC claims. Such claims were less common with increasing age, declining from 44% in patients aged 65-74 years to 18% in patients 85 aged years and older. Although melanoma incidence increased throughout the period studied, melanoma mortality rates remained relatively stable.

By summary stage at diagnosis, IHC utilization ranged from 29% of in situ cases to 75% of distant cases. After the researchers controlled for year of diagnosis, IHC use was statistically significantly associated with all demographic, tumor, and geographic characteristics examined, except race and ethnicity. Across all the years of the study, regional usage ranged from a low of 22% in Detroit to a high of 44% in both Louisiana and San Jose-Monterey, California. Figures for 2017 ranged from 39% of cases in Kentucky and Atlanta to 68% in New Mexico.

“Given the extensive use of IHC in clinical practice,” the authors concluded, “studies examining the resulting outcomes of IHC on different domains, such as symptom burden, quality of life, and mortality, are crucial.”

The “notable” regional variation in IHC utilization suggests uncertainty about its optimal employment in clinical practice, and, they wrote, “these findings highlight the need for research to identify where IHC provides the most value and to develop guidelines regarding the appropriate use of IHC.”

In an accompanying JAMA Dermatology editorial, Alexandra Flamm, MD, wrote, “now is an exciting time to practice dermatopathology, with an increased number of ancillary tests, such as IHC, that can be used to diagnose malignant neoplasms more precisely and to more accurately determine prognosis and therapeutic options in this age of precision medicine”.

However, added Dr. Flamm, a dermatologist and dermatopathologist at New York University, New York City, the increasing number of ancillary tests is fueling awareness of appropriate use and the importance of ensuring high-quality, value-based healthcare. “With this increased scrutiny on the appropriateness of ancillary histopathologic testing within dermatopathology,” she wrote, “the need is growing for parameters that can be used to guide when to use IHC testing and other ancillary testing.” And using dermatopathologist-developed tools such as American Society of Dermatopathology guidelines for 11 IHC tests can help ensure that appropriate medical decision-making is taken into account when creating these tools, she added.

IHC Usage Growing

“The paper confirms what I already knew,” said Whitney High, MD, JD, who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results. “Use of IHC in dermatopathology has increased substantially, and probably will continue to increase over time.” The societal burden of IHC costs represents a legitimate concern, said Dr. High, professor of dermatology and pathology and director of dermatopathology at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

“However,” he told this news organization, “the histologic diagnosis of melanoma is sometimes substantially subjective — and all physicians, including pathologists, even though they are not providing care in the physical presence of the patient, are fiduciaries.” If an IHC stain would meaningfully improve a patient’s care, he said, physicians should attempt to provide it, unless strictly disallowed by a payer. Controlling medical-care costs might be better left to professional societies to guide care standards over time, he noted.

Dr. High

A retrospective analysis of Medicare data revealed that between 2000 and 2017, immunohistochemistry (IHC) claims associated with melanoma diagnoses grew from 11% to 51%. Rising utilization — and substantial geographic variation in practice patterns — argue for further research to optimize IHC use in the diagnoses of melanoma, according to the authors.

But with sparse guidance regarding best practices for IHC in melanoma diagnosis, concerns for appropriate use are rising, they wrote in their report, recently published in JAMA Dermatology.

Kenechukwu Ojukwu, MD, MPP, of the department of pathology and laboratory medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, and coinvestigators, searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare database for incident in situ or invasive cutaneous melanoma in patients 65 years and older and accompanying IHC claims made during the month of diagnosis through 14 days afterward.

Among 132,547 melanomas in 116,117 patients, 43,396 (33%) had accompanying IHC claims. Such claims were less common with increasing age, declining from 44% in patients aged 65-74 years to 18% in patients 85 aged years and older. Although melanoma incidence increased throughout the period studied, melanoma mortality rates remained relatively stable.

By summary stage at diagnosis, IHC utilization ranged from 29% of in situ cases to 75% of distant cases. After the researchers controlled for year of diagnosis, IHC use was statistically significantly associated with all demographic, tumor, and geographic characteristics examined, except race and ethnicity. Across all the years of the study, regional usage ranged from a low of 22% in Detroit to a high of 44% in both Louisiana and San Jose-Monterey, California. Figures for 2017 ranged from 39% of cases in Kentucky and Atlanta to 68% in New Mexico.

“Given the extensive use of IHC in clinical practice,” the authors concluded, “studies examining the resulting outcomes of IHC on different domains, such as symptom burden, quality of life, and mortality, are crucial.”

The “notable” regional variation in IHC utilization suggests uncertainty about its optimal employment in clinical practice, and, they wrote, “these findings highlight the need for research to identify where IHC provides the most value and to develop guidelines regarding the appropriate use of IHC.”

In an accompanying JAMA Dermatology editorial, Alexandra Flamm, MD, wrote, “now is an exciting time to practice dermatopathology, with an increased number of ancillary tests, such as IHC, that can be used to diagnose malignant neoplasms more precisely and to more accurately determine prognosis and therapeutic options in this age of precision medicine”.

However, added Dr. Flamm, a dermatologist and dermatopathologist at New York University, New York City, the increasing number of ancillary tests is fueling awareness of appropriate use and the importance of ensuring high-quality, value-based healthcare. “With this increased scrutiny on the appropriateness of ancillary histopathologic testing within dermatopathology,” she wrote, “the need is growing for parameters that can be used to guide when to use IHC testing and other ancillary testing.” And using dermatopathologist-developed tools such as American Society of Dermatopathology guidelines for 11 IHC tests can help ensure that appropriate medical decision-making is taken into account when creating these tools, she added.

IHC Usage Growing

“The paper confirms what I already knew,” said Whitney High, MD, JD, who was not involved with the study and was asked to comment on the results. “Use of IHC in dermatopathology has increased substantially, and probably will continue to increase over time.” The societal burden of IHC costs represents a legitimate concern, said Dr. High, professor of dermatology and pathology and director of dermatopathology at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

“However,” he told this news organization, “the histologic diagnosis of melanoma is sometimes substantially subjective — and all physicians, including pathologists, even though they are not providing care in the physical presence of the patient, are fiduciaries.” If an IHC stain would meaningfully improve a patient’s care, he said, physicians should attempt to provide it, unless strictly disallowed by a payer. Controlling medical-care costs might be better left to professional societies to guide care standards over time, he noted.

Dr. High

CHEST

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stems from making the best patient-centered decision from the highest-quality data available that comports with our understanding of pathophysiology. In some situations, clinicians are forced to draw conclusions from data that are imperfect and apply it to patients who are complex and dynamic. For most pathologies, available data provides some direction. There is, however, one pathophysiologic state that remains understudied, precarious, and common.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 7.7% of the United States population has asthma. There were about 1 million ED visits in 2020, with asthma listed as the primary diagnosis, and only 94,000 required hospitalization.¹ There are many tools we employ that have greatly decreased inpatient admissions for asthma. The uptake of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has significantly reduced asthma-related morbidity and mortality and reduced exacerbations that require admission to a hospital. This treatment strategy is supported by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines.^2,3 While we should celebrate the impact that EBM and ICS have had on asthma outcomes, we continue to struggle to control severe asthma.

Bronchodilator therapy in the hospital is ubiquitous. House staff and hospitalists click the bronchodilator order set early and often. However, the optimal frequency, dose, and duration of inhaled bronchodilator therapy for acute asthma exacerbation are unknown. Do frequency, dose, and duration change with exacerbation severity? Nothing gets ED, inpatient, or ICU physicians more jittery than the phrase “exacerbation of asthma on BiPap” or “intubated for asthma.” With its enormous clinical impact and notoriously difficult hospital and ICU course, the lack of evidence we have for managing these patients outside of the initial 24- to 48-hour visit is concerning. Neither NAEPP nor GINA provide management recommendations for the patient with severe asthma exacerbation that necessitates admission.

Albuterol is a commonly used medication for asthma and chronic obstructive airway disease. It is rapid acting and effective—few medications give patients (or clinicians) such instant satisfaction. As an internal medicine resident and pulmonary fellow, I ordered it countless times without ever looking at the dose. Sometimes, patients would come up from the emergency department after receiving a “continuous dose.” I would often wonder exactly what that meant. After some investigation, I found that in my hospital at the time, one dose of albuterol was 2.5 mg in 2 mL, and a continuous nebulization was four doses for a total of 10 mg.

Shrestha et al. found that high-dose albuterol (7.5 mg) administered continuously was superior to 2.5 mg albuterol delivered three times over 1.5 hours. There were demonstrable improvements in FEV₁ and no ICU admissions.⁴ This study is one of many that compared intermittent to continuous and high-dose vs low-dose albuterol in the emergency department. Most are small and occur over the first 24 hours of presentation to the hospital. They often use short-term changes in spirometry as their primary outcome measure. Being a pulmonary and critical care doctor, I see patients who require advanced rescue maneuvers such as noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or other pharmacologic adjuncts, for which the current evidence is limited.

Because studies of inhaled bronchodilators in acute asthma exacerbation use spirometry as their primary outcome, those with more severe disease and higher acuity are excluded. Patients on NIPPV can’t perform spirometry. There is essentially no literature to guide treatment for a patient with asthma in the adult ICU. In pediatric intensive care units, there are some data to support either continuous or intermittent inhaled bronchodilator that extends beyond the initial ED visit up to about 60 hours.⁵ Much of the pediatric data revolve about the amount of albuterol given, which can be as high as 75 mg/hr though is typically closer to 10-20 mg/hr.⁶ This rate is continued until respiratory improvement occurs.

With poor evidence to guide us and no specific direction from major guidelines, how should providers manage severe asthma exacerbation? The amount of drug deposited in the lung varies by the device used to deliver it. For nebulization, only about 10% of the nebulized amount reaches the lungs for effect; this is a smaller amount compared with all other devices one could use, such as MDI or DPI.⁷ Once a patient with asthma reaches the emergency department, that person is usually placed on some form of nebulizer treatment. But based on local hospital protocols, the amount and duration can vary widely. Sometimes, in patients with severe exacerbation, there is trepidation to continuing albuterol therapy due to ongoing tachycardia. This seems reasonable given increased albuterol administration could beget an ongoing cycle of dyspnea and anxiety. It could also lead to choosing therapies that are less evidence based.

In closing, this seemingly mundane topic takes on new meaning when a patient is in severe exacerbation. Fortunately, providers are not often faced with the decision to wade into the evidence-free territory of severe asthma exacerbation that is unresponsive to first-line treatments. This narrative should serve as a general alert that this pathophysiologic state is understudied. When encountered, thoughtful consideration of pathology, physiology, and pharmacology is required to reverse it.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, May 10). Most recent national asthma data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm

2. Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. (2023, August 15). 2023 GINA Main Report - Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. https://ginasthma.org/2023-gina-main-report/

3. Kiley J, Mensah GA, Boyce CA, et al (A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group). 2020 Focused updates to the: Asthma Management Guidelines. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIH, NHLBI 2020.

4. Shrestha M, Bidadi K, Gourlay S, Hayes J. Continuous vs intermittent albuterol, at high and low doses, in the treatment of severe acute asthma in adults. Chest. 1996 Jul;110(1):42-7. doi: 10.1378/chest.110.1.42. PMID: 8681661.

5. Kulalert P, Phinyo P, Patumanond J, Smathakanee C, Chuenjit W, Nanthapisal S. Continuous versus intermittent short-acting β2-agonists nebulization as first-line therapy in hospitalized children with severe asthma exacerbation: a propensity score matching analysis. Asthma Res Pract. 2020 Jul 2;6:6. doi: 10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5. PMID: 32632352; PMCID: PMC7329360.

6. Phumeetham S, Bahk TJ, Abd-Allah S, Mathur M. Effect of high-dose continuous albuterol nebulization on clinical variables in children with status asthmaticus. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):e41-6. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000314. PMID: 25560428.

7. Gardenhire DS, Burnett D, Strickland S, Myers, TR. A guide to aerosol delivery devices for respiratory therapists. American Association for Respiratory Care, Dallas, Texas 2017.

CHEST

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stems from making the best patient-centered decision from the highest-quality data available that comports with our understanding of pathophysiology. In some situations, clinicians are forced to draw conclusions from data that are imperfect and apply it to patients who are complex and dynamic. For most pathologies, available data provides some direction. There is, however, one pathophysiologic state that remains understudied, precarious, and common.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 7.7% of the United States population has asthma. There were about 1 million ED visits in 2020, with asthma listed as the primary diagnosis, and only 94,000 required hospitalization.¹ There are many tools we employ that have greatly decreased inpatient admissions for asthma. The uptake of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has significantly reduced asthma-related morbidity and mortality and reduced exacerbations that require admission to a hospital. This treatment strategy is supported by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines.^2,3 While we should celebrate the impact that EBM and ICS have had on asthma outcomes, we continue to struggle to control severe asthma.

Bronchodilator therapy in the hospital is ubiquitous. House staff and hospitalists click the bronchodilator order set early and often. However, the optimal frequency, dose, and duration of inhaled bronchodilator therapy for acute asthma exacerbation are unknown. Do frequency, dose, and duration change with exacerbation severity? Nothing gets ED, inpatient, or ICU physicians more jittery than the phrase “exacerbation of asthma on BiPap” or “intubated for asthma.” With its enormous clinical impact and notoriously difficult hospital and ICU course, the lack of evidence we have for managing these patients outside of the initial 24- to 48-hour visit is concerning. Neither NAEPP nor GINA provide management recommendations for the patient with severe asthma exacerbation that necessitates admission.

Albuterol is a commonly used medication for asthma and chronic obstructive airway disease. It is rapid acting and effective—few medications give patients (or clinicians) such instant satisfaction. As an internal medicine resident and pulmonary fellow, I ordered it countless times without ever looking at the dose. Sometimes, patients would come up from the emergency department after receiving a “continuous dose.” I would often wonder exactly what that meant. After some investigation, I found that in my hospital at the time, one dose of albuterol was 2.5 mg in 2 mL, and a continuous nebulization was four doses for a total of 10 mg.

Shrestha et al. found that high-dose albuterol (7.5 mg) administered continuously was superior to 2.5 mg albuterol delivered three times over 1.5 hours. There were demonstrable improvements in FEV₁ and no ICU admissions.⁴ This study is one of many that compared intermittent to continuous and high-dose vs low-dose albuterol in the emergency department. Most are small and occur over the first 24 hours of presentation to the hospital. They often use short-term changes in spirometry as their primary outcome measure. Being a pulmonary and critical care doctor, I see patients who require advanced rescue maneuvers such as noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or other pharmacologic adjuncts, for which the current evidence is limited.

Because studies of inhaled bronchodilators in acute asthma exacerbation use spirometry as their primary outcome, those with more severe disease and higher acuity are excluded. Patients on NIPPV can’t perform spirometry. There is essentially no literature to guide treatment for a patient with asthma in the adult ICU. In pediatric intensive care units, there are some data to support either continuous or intermittent inhaled bronchodilator that extends beyond the initial ED visit up to about 60 hours.⁵ Much of the pediatric data revolve about the amount of albuterol given, which can be as high as 75 mg/hr though is typically closer to 10-20 mg/hr.⁶ This rate is continued until respiratory improvement occurs.

With poor evidence to guide us and no specific direction from major guidelines, how should providers manage severe asthma exacerbation? The amount of drug deposited in the lung varies by the device used to deliver it. For nebulization, only about 10% of the nebulized amount reaches the lungs for effect; this is a smaller amount compared with all other devices one could use, such as MDI or DPI.⁷ Once a patient with asthma reaches the emergency department, that person is usually placed on some form of nebulizer treatment. But based on local hospital protocols, the amount and duration can vary widely. Sometimes, in patients with severe exacerbation, there is trepidation to continuing albuterol therapy due to ongoing tachycardia. This seems reasonable given increased albuterol administration could beget an ongoing cycle of dyspnea and anxiety. It could also lead to choosing therapies that are less evidence based.

In closing, this seemingly mundane topic takes on new meaning when a patient is in severe exacerbation. Fortunately, providers are not often faced with the decision to wade into the evidence-free territory of severe asthma exacerbation that is unresponsive to first-line treatments. This narrative should serve as a general alert that this pathophysiologic state is understudied. When encountered, thoughtful consideration of pathology, physiology, and pharmacology is required to reverse it.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, May 10). Most recent national asthma data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm

2. Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. (2023, August 15). 2023 GINA Main Report - Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. https://ginasthma.org/2023-gina-main-report/

3. Kiley J, Mensah GA, Boyce CA, et al (A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group). 2020 Focused updates to the: Asthma Management Guidelines. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIH, NHLBI 2020.

4. Shrestha M, Bidadi K, Gourlay S, Hayes J. Continuous vs intermittent albuterol, at high and low doses, in the treatment of severe acute asthma in adults. Chest. 1996 Jul;110(1):42-7. doi: 10.1378/chest.110.1.42. PMID: 8681661.

5. Kulalert P, Phinyo P, Patumanond J, Smathakanee C, Chuenjit W, Nanthapisal S. Continuous versus intermittent short-acting β2-agonists nebulization as first-line therapy in hospitalized children with severe asthma exacerbation: a propensity score matching analysis. Asthma Res Pract. 2020 Jul 2;6:6. doi: 10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5. PMID: 32632352; PMCID: PMC7329360.

6. Phumeetham S, Bahk TJ, Abd-Allah S, Mathur M. Effect of high-dose continuous albuterol nebulization on clinical variables in children with status asthmaticus. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):e41-6. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000314. PMID: 25560428.

7. Gardenhire DS, Burnett D, Strickland S, Myers, TR. A guide to aerosol delivery devices for respiratory therapists. American Association for Respiratory Care, Dallas, Texas 2017.

CHEST

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stems from making the best patient-centered decision from the highest-quality data available that comports with our understanding of pathophysiology. In some situations, clinicians are forced to draw conclusions from data that are imperfect and apply it to patients who are complex and dynamic. For most pathologies, available data provides some direction. There is, however, one pathophysiologic state that remains understudied, precarious, and common.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 7.7% of the United States population has asthma. There were about 1 million ED visits in 2020, with asthma listed as the primary diagnosis, and only 94,000 required hospitalization.¹ There are many tools we employ that have greatly decreased inpatient admissions for asthma. The uptake of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) has significantly reduced asthma-related morbidity and mortality and reduced exacerbations that require admission to a hospital. This treatment strategy is supported by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) guidelines.^2,3 While we should celebrate the impact that EBM and ICS have had on asthma outcomes, we continue to struggle to control severe asthma.

Bronchodilator therapy in the hospital is ubiquitous. House staff and hospitalists click the bronchodilator order set early and often. However, the optimal frequency, dose, and duration of inhaled bronchodilator therapy for acute asthma exacerbation are unknown. Do frequency, dose, and duration change with exacerbation severity? Nothing gets ED, inpatient, or ICU physicians more jittery than the phrase “exacerbation of asthma on BiPap” or “intubated for asthma.” With its enormous clinical impact and notoriously difficult hospital and ICU course, the lack of evidence we have for managing these patients outside of the initial 24- to 48-hour visit is concerning. Neither NAEPP nor GINA provide management recommendations for the patient with severe asthma exacerbation that necessitates admission.

Albuterol is a commonly used medication for asthma and chronic obstructive airway disease. It is rapid acting and effective—few medications give patients (or clinicians) such instant satisfaction. As an internal medicine resident and pulmonary fellow, I ordered it countless times without ever looking at the dose. Sometimes, patients would come up from the emergency department after receiving a “continuous dose.” I would often wonder exactly what that meant. After some investigation, I found that in my hospital at the time, one dose of albuterol was 2.5 mg in 2 mL, and a continuous nebulization was four doses for a total of 10 mg.

Shrestha et al. found that high-dose albuterol (7.5 mg) administered continuously was superior to 2.5 mg albuterol delivered three times over 1.5 hours. There were demonstrable improvements in FEV₁ and no ICU admissions.⁴ This study is one of many that compared intermittent to continuous and high-dose vs low-dose albuterol in the emergency department. Most are small and occur over the first 24 hours of presentation to the hospital. They often use short-term changes in spirometry as their primary outcome measure. Being a pulmonary and critical care doctor, I see patients who require advanced rescue maneuvers such as noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) or other pharmacologic adjuncts, for which the current evidence is limited.

Because studies of inhaled bronchodilators in acute asthma exacerbation use spirometry as their primary outcome, those with more severe disease and higher acuity are excluded. Patients on NIPPV can’t perform spirometry. There is essentially no literature to guide treatment for a patient with asthma in the adult ICU. In pediatric intensive care units, there are some data to support either continuous or intermittent inhaled bronchodilator that extends beyond the initial ED visit up to about 60 hours.⁵ Much of the pediatric data revolve about the amount of albuterol given, which can be as high as 75 mg/hr though is typically closer to 10-20 mg/hr.⁶ This rate is continued until respiratory improvement occurs.

With poor evidence to guide us and no specific direction from major guidelines, how should providers manage severe asthma exacerbation? The amount of drug deposited in the lung varies by the device used to deliver it. For nebulization, only about 10% of the nebulized amount reaches the lungs for effect; this is a smaller amount compared with all other devices one could use, such as MDI or DPI.⁷ Once a patient with asthma reaches the emergency department, that person is usually placed on some form of nebulizer treatment. But based on local hospital protocols, the amount and duration can vary widely. Sometimes, in patients with severe exacerbation, there is trepidation to continuing albuterol therapy due to ongoing tachycardia. This seems reasonable given increased albuterol administration could beget an ongoing cycle of dyspnea and anxiety. It could also lead to choosing therapies that are less evidence based.

In closing, this seemingly mundane topic takes on new meaning when a patient is in severe exacerbation. Fortunately, providers are not often faced with the decision to wade into the evidence-free territory of severe asthma exacerbation that is unresponsive to first-line treatments. This narrative should serve as a general alert that this pathophysiologic state is understudied. When encountered, thoughtful consideration of pathology, physiology, and pharmacology is required to reverse it.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023, May 10). Most recent national asthma data. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm

2. Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. (2023, August 15). 2023 GINA Main Report - Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA. https://ginasthma.org/2023-gina-main-report/

3. Kiley J, Mensah GA, Boyce CA, et al (A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group). 2020 Focused updates to the: Asthma Management Guidelines. US Department of Health and Human Services, NIH, NHLBI 2020.

4. Shrestha M, Bidadi K, Gourlay S, Hayes J. Continuous vs intermittent albuterol, at high and low doses, in the treatment of severe acute asthma in adults. Chest. 1996 Jul;110(1):42-7. doi: 10.1378/chest.110.1.42. PMID: 8681661.

5. Kulalert P, Phinyo P, Patumanond J, Smathakanee C, Chuenjit W, Nanthapisal S. Continuous versus intermittent short-acting β2-agonists nebulization as first-line therapy in hospitalized children with severe asthma exacerbation: a propensity score matching analysis. Asthma Res Pract. 2020 Jul 2;6:6. doi: 10.1186/s40733-020-00059-5. PMID: 32632352; PMCID: PMC7329360.

6. Phumeetham S, Bahk TJ, Abd-Allah S, Mathur M. Effect of high-dose continuous albuterol nebulization on clinical variables in children with status asthmaticus. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Feb;16(2):e41-6. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000314. PMID: 25560428.

7. Gardenhire DS, Burnett D, Strickland S, Myers, TR. A guide to aerosol delivery devices for respiratory therapists. American Association for Respiratory Care, Dallas, Texas 2017.

CHEST

Soon after moving to Pittsburgh for my pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship in 2014, I began noticing a theme: So many of my patients expressed a sense that the air they breathed was harming them or was in some way responsible for the severity of their lung disease.

In this city, the legacy of the steel industry from the last century fostered economic prosperity but resulted in a profound legacy of pollution as well. Unfortunately, due to a combination of fossil fuel dependence for electricity generation and transportation, industrial particulate matter (PM) generation and greenhouse gas emissions, temperature inversions related to the topography of the region, and, most recently, smoke from Canadian wildfires in the summer of 2023, the air quality in Pittsburgh ranks among the 25 least healthy US cities. Our patients are bearing the burden of climate change.

My patients relay that because of the poor air quality in the neighborhood they live in, they feel sick. I remember a patient in clinic talking about how on the days he could see a film of particulate on all the cars and the street outside, he knew he would feel more shortness of breath. Patients share about how when they had lived in different neighborhoods in town or traveled outside of Pittsburgh, their breathing improved.

Patients tell me that their asthma or COPD that did not use to cause them frequent trouble is now less well controlled despite better therapies available. Patients who used to experience seasonal allergies in just the fall or the spring now are plagued by their allergy symptoms year-round because of a warming climate yielding excess pollen throughout all seasons.

A recent study of patients with pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that exposure to excess PM_2.5 in this region resulted in more rapid clinical deterioration and premature death compared with patients with the same disease in other parts of North America with better air quality. The common denominator is human-generated climate change’s negative impact on health.

In particular, those who are already vulnerable because of underlying chronic disease or socioeconomic disparity are at greater risk and feel these repercussions disproportionately. Black and brown communities are more heavily exposed to air pollution due to the history of redlining and ongoing structural racism and, as a result, have worse health outcomes than other groups. There is an urgency and moral imperative for us as clinicians to address generations of environmental injustice.

While these themes floated around in the background during the early stage of my career as a pulmonologist, I didn’t have language or deep knowledge around these structural environmental issues. As a profession, we are gradually recognizing that the health impacts of climate change on which to advocate are within our wheelhouse as clinicians.

Our patients and our trainees are increasingly aware of these issues, and, as a result, we as currently practicing clinicians and educators must urgently learn about the lived experiences of our patients and how their diseases interplay with their exposures.

Nowadays, I think more about how to mitigate the impact of air pollution, which did not previously factor into my training or the early years of my clinical practice. We know that some patients, particularly those with underlying lung disease and young children, are at greater risk when exposed to more polluted air and may need to take different steps to limit their exposure. We now consider advising these patients with chronic respiratory disease to be aware of air quality advisories and limit their time outdoors on worse air quality days. We anticipate that when the air quality is worse, we will see more complications of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.

As lifelong learners, we thirst for the latest data to incorporate into our clinical decision-making. Similarly, colleagues and I are now also voraciously reading and starting to have conversations with peers about the convergence of climate change and disease. But no matter how compelling and urgent these issues are, one clinician cannot tackle the massive threat of climate change and complexity of health care sustainability in isolation.

I am fortunate to work with several like-minded and highly motivated colleagues at my own institution. We have been able to organize effectively to spark local change toward reducing our system’s carbon emissions. Similarly, through professional organizations like CHEST, I have been able to collaborate with other pulmonary and critical care clinicians who share these passions and are doing similar advocacy work across the country. I am honored to serve as CHEST’s representative to the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health as another avenue to keep advancing this cause at scale in collaboration with advocates across all specialties.

While I worry every day for my patients, our communities, and my children as we face the accelerating threat of climate change, knowing that I am actively engaging in these efforts in pursuit of environmental justice and mitigating health care’s climate change contribution gives me a sense of empowerment and solidarity with others also striving to lessen our burden on the planet.

This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

CHEST

Soon after moving to Pittsburgh for my pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship in 2014, I began noticing a theme: So many of my patients expressed a sense that the air they breathed was harming them or was in some way responsible for the severity of their lung disease.

In this city, the legacy of the steel industry from the last century fostered economic prosperity but resulted in a profound legacy of pollution as well. Unfortunately, due to a combination of fossil fuel dependence for electricity generation and transportation, industrial particulate matter (PM) generation and greenhouse gas emissions, temperature inversions related to the topography of the region, and, most recently, smoke from Canadian wildfires in the summer of 2023, the air quality in Pittsburgh ranks among the 25 least healthy US cities. Our patients are bearing the burden of climate change.

My patients relay that because of the poor air quality in the neighborhood they live in, they feel sick. I remember a patient in clinic talking about how on the days he could see a film of particulate on all the cars and the street outside, he knew he would feel more shortness of breath. Patients share about how when they had lived in different neighborhoods in town or traveled outside of Pittsburgh, their breathing improved.

Patients tell me that their asthma or COPD that did not use to cause them frequent trouble is now less well controlled despite better therapies available. Patients who used to experience seasonal allergies in just the fall or the spring now are plagued by their allergy symptoms year-round because of a warming climate yielding excess pollen throughout all seasons.

A recent study of patients with pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that exposure to excess PM_2.5 in this region resulted in more rapid clinical deterioration and premature death compared with patients with the same disease in other parts of North America with better air quality. The common denominator is human-generated climate change’s negative impact on health.

In particular, those who are already vulnerable because of underlying chronic disease or socioeconomic disparity are at greater risk and feel these repercussions disproportionately. Black and brown communities are more heavily exposed to air pollution due to the history of redlining and ongoing structural racism and, as a result, have worse health outcomes than other groups. There is an urgency and moral imperative for us as clinicians to address generations of environmental injustice.

While these themes floated around in the background during the early stage of my career as a pulmonologist, I didn’t have language or deep knowledge around these structural environmental issues. As a profession, we are gradually recognizing that the health impacts of climate change on which to advocate are within our wheelhouse as clinicians.

Our patients and our trainees are increasingly aware of these issues, and, as a result, we as currently practicing clinicians and educators must urgently learn about the lived experiences of our patients and how their diseases interplay with their exposures.

Nowadays, I think more about how to mitigate the impact of air pollution, which did not previously factor into my training or the early years of my clinical practice. We know that some patients, particularly those with underlying lung disease and young children, are at greater risk when exposed to more polluted air and may need to take different steps to limit their exposure. We now consider advising these patients with chronic respiratory disease to be aware of air quality advisories and limit their time outdoors on worse air quality days. We anticipate that when the air quality is worse, we will see more complications of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.

As lifelong learners, we thirst for the latest data to incorporate into our clinical decision-making. Similarly, colleagues and I are now also voraciously reading and starting to have conversations with peers about the convergence of climate change and disease. But no matter how compelling and urgent these issues are, one clinician cannot tackle the massive threat of climate change and complexity of health care sustainability in isolation.

I am fortunate to work with several like-minded and highly motivated colleagues at my own institution. We have been able to organize effectively to spark local change toward reducing our system’s carbon emissions. Similarly, through professional organizations like CHEST, I have been able to collaborate with other pulmonary and critical care clinicians who share these passions and are doing similar advocacy work across the country. I am honored to serve as CHEST’s representative to the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health as another avenue to keep advancing this cause at scale in collaboration with advocates across all specialties.

While I worry every day for my patients, our communities, and my children as we face the accelerating threat of climate change, knowing that I am actively engaging in these efforts in pursuit of environmental justice and mitigating health care’s climate change contribution gives me a sense of empowerment and solidarity with others also striving to lessen our burden on the planet.

This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

CHEST

Soon after moving to Pittsburgh for my pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship in 2014, I began noticing a theme: So many of my patients expressed a sense that the air they breathed was harming them or was in some way responsible for the severity of their lung disease.

In this city, the legacy of the steel industry from the last century fostered economic prosperity but resulted in a profound legacy of pollution as well. Unfortunately, due to a combination of fossil fuel dependence for electricity generation and transportation, industrial particulate matter (PM) generation and greenhouse gas emissions, temperature inversions related to the topography of the region, and, most recently, smoke from Canadian wildfires in the summer of 2023, the air quality in Pittsburgh ranks among the 25 least healthy US cities. Our patients are bearing the burden of climate change.

My patients relay that because of the poor air quality in the neighborhood they live in, they feel sick. I remember a patient in clinic talking about how on the days he could see a film of particulate on all the cars and the street outside, he knew he would feel more shortness of breath. Patients share about how when they had lived in different neighborhoods in town or traveled outside of Pittsburgh, their breathing improved.

Patients tell me that their asthma or COPD that did not use to cause them frequent trouble is now less well controlled despite better therapies available. Patients who used to experience seasonal allergies in just the fall or the spring now are plagued by their allergy symptoms year-round because of a warming climate yielding excess pollen throughout all seasons.

A recent study of patients with pulmonary fibrosis demonstrated that exposure to excess PM_2.5 in this region resulted in more rapid clinical deterioration and premature death compared with patients with the same disease in other parts of North America with better air quality. The common denominator is human-generated climate change’s negative impact on health.

In particular, those who are already vulnerable because of underlying chronic disease or socioeconomic disparity are at greater risk and feel these repercussions disproportionately. Black and brown communities are more heavily exposed to air pollution due to the history of redlining and ongoing structural racism and, as a result, have worse health outcomes than other groups. There is an urgency and moral imperative for us as clinicians to address generations of environmental injustice.

While these themes floated around in the background during the early stage of my career as a pulmonologist, I didn’t have language or deep knowledge around these structural environmental issues. As a profession, we are gradually recognizing that the health impacts of climate change on which to advocate are within our wheelhouse as clinicians.

Our patients and our trainees are increasingly aware of these issues, and, as a result, we as currently practicing clinicians and educators must urgently learn about the lived experiences of our patients and how their diseases interplay with their exposures.

Nowadays, I think more about how to mitigate the impact of air pollution, which did not previously factor into my training or the early years of my clinical practice. We know that some patients, particularly those with underlying lung disease and young children, are at greater risk when exposed to more polluted air and may need to take different steps to limit their exposure. We now consider advising these patients with chronic respiratory disease to be aware of air quality advisories and limit their time outdoors on worse air quality days. We anticipate that when the air quality is worse, we will see more complications of cardiovascular and pulmonary disease.

As lifelong learners, we thirst for the latest data to incorporate into our clinical decision-making. Similarly, colleagues and I are now also voraciously reading and starting to have conversations with peers about the convergence of climate change and disease. But no matter how compelling and urgent these issues are, one clinician cannot tackle the massive threat of climate change and complexity of health care sustainability in isolation.

I am fortunate to work with several like-minded and highly motivated colleagues at my own institution. We have been able to organize effectively to spark local change toward reducing our system’s carbon emissions. Similarly, through professional organizations like CHEST, I have been able to collaborate with other pulmonary and critical care clinicians who share these passions and are doing similar advocacy work across the country. I am honored to serve as CHEST’s representative to the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health as another avenue to keep advancing this cause at scale in collaboration with advocates across all specialties.

While I worry every day for my patients, our communities, and my children as we face the accelerating threat of climate change, knowing that I am actively engaging in these efforts in pursuit of environmental justice and mitigating health care’s climate change contribution gives me a sense of empowerment and solidarity with others also striving to lessen our burden on the planet.

This article was adapted from the Winter 2024 online issue of CHEST Advocates. For the full article — and to engage with the other content from this issue — visit https://chestnet.org/chest-advocates.

CHEST

In his prior research, Chien-Ching Li, PhD, MPH, focused on promoting lung cancer screening in Chinese American men, a population that frequently smokes heavily. But last year, he applied for a CHEST grant that’s shifting his focus to another demographic: Chinese American women who do not smoke, especially those with limited English proficiency.

“They are developing lung cancer, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Li, an associate professor of Health Systems Management at Rush University.

In the United States, Asian American women who don’t smoke, and never have, are twice as likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer as white women with similar nonsmoking habits. In fact, 57% of Asian American women diagnosed with lung cancer never smoked cigarettes.

What’s behind this rise in lung cancer in women who have never smoked compared with men, and particularly in Asian American women? One possibility: While Chinese American women may never smoke themselves, they frequently live with partners or family members who do. (About 28% of Chinese American men smoke heavily, Dr. Li said.)

“We think secondhand smoke might be one of the key risk factors, because they’re living with people who smoke,” Dr. Li said. His prior research shows that the majority of Chinese American men in greater Chicagoland—89%—are married, and many of them smoke or have a history of smoking.

With the CHEST grant Dr. Li received in October 2023, he’s working to increase awareness among Chinese American women about the risks of secondhand smoke and “reduce the health disparity in lung cancer among women,” Dr. Li said.
 

Developing culturally sensitive materials for a high-risk group

While many lung cancer reduction efforts focus on people who smoke, there are plenty of pamphlets designed to inform about the risks incurred when breathing in secondhand smoke.

These handouts, however, aren’t always available in languages spoken by Chinese Americans. Nor is it as simple as hiring a translator; doing so may make the pamphlets readable to the women, but it won’t necessarily make the text culturally appropriate.

This is what Dr. Li—along with his coinvestigators, Alicia Matthews, PhD, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, and Hong Liu, PhD, of the Midwest Asian Health Association—seeks to change, with funding from the CHEST grant. Their goal is four-pronged:

1. Discovery: Dr. Li and his team are currently surveying Chinese American women who have never smoked but who live with people who smoke in greater Chicagoland. These surveys will help them learn more about what (if anything) this group knows about the health risks associated with secondhand smoke and other types of environmental smoke.

2. Identify: These surveys, along with focus group interviews with select participants, will help reveal barriers standing in the way of reducing the women’s exposure to secondhand smoke—as well as ways to encourage habits to reduce risk.

3. Develop: All the information gained through surveys and conversations will then be analyzed and used to craft targeted, translated, and culturally appropriate materials on secondhand smoke, conveying communication strategies the women can use to persuade their partners to quit smoking and ways to build a smoke-free household.

4. Evaluate: The effectiveness of the new materials will be tested to assess the change in the women’s knowledge, as well as any uptick in taking steps to reduce exposure or sign up for screening.
 

Using the CHEST grant as a building block to more grants—and more information

Dr. Li and his collaborators are still in the early stages of using the CHEST grant: gathering up participants and surveying them.

But there’s much ahead. With the CHEST grant in hand, Dr. Li plans to apply for grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH): first, an NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) to help achieve that fourth aim of evaluating how the intervention works. And next, they’ll apply for an NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01), which will fund an even larger trial.

“Not many studies focus on identifying the risk factors with lung cancer associated with Chinese American [women who have never smoked],” Dr. Li said. “This is why we want to focus on this area to provide more knowledge and make more contributions to research.”

Projects like this are made possible by generous contributions from CHEST donors. Support the future of chest medicine by visiting https://chestnet.org/donate.

CHEST

In his prior research, Chien-Ching Li, PhD, MPH, focused on promoting lung cancer screening in Chinese American men, a population that frequently smokes heavily. But last year, he applied for a CHEST grant that’s shifting his focus to another demographic: Chinese American women who do not smoke, especially those with limited English proficiency.

“They are developing lung cancer, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Li, an associate professor of Health Systems Management at Rush University.

In the United States, Asian American women who don’t smoke, and never have, are twice as likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer as white women with similar nonsmoking habits. In fact, 57% of Asian American women diagnosed with lung cancer never smoked cigarettes.

What’s behind this rise in lung cancer in women who have never smoked compared with men, and particularly in Asian American women? One possibility: While Chinese American women may never smoke themselves, they frequently live with partners or family members who do. (About 28% of Chinese American men smoke heavily, Dr. Li said.)

“We think secondhand smoke might be one of the key risk factors, because they’re living with people who smoke,” Dr. Li said. His prior research shows that the majority of Chinese American men in greater Chicagoland—89%—are married, and many of them smoke or have a history of smoking.

With the CHEST grant Dr. Li received in October 2023, he’s working to increase awareness among Chinese American women about the risks of secondhand smoke and “reduce the health disparity in lung cancer among women,” Dr. Li said.
 

Developing culturally sensitive materials for a high-risk group

While many lung cancer reduction efforts focus on people who smoke, there are plenty of pamphlets designed to inform about the risks incurred when breathing in secondhand smoke.

These handouts, however, aren’t always available in languages spoken by Chinese Americans. Nor is it as simple as hiring a translator; doing so may make the pamphlets readable to the women, but it won’t necessarily make the text culturally appropriate.

This is what Dr. Li—along with his coinvestigators, Alicia Matthews, PhD, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, and Hong Liu, PhD, of the Midwest Asian Health Association—seeks to change, with funding from the CHEST grant. Their goal is four-pronged:

1. Discovery: Dr. Li and his team are currently surveying Chinese American women who have never smoked but who live with people who smoke in greater Chicagoland. These surveys will help them learn more about what (if anything) this group knows about the health risks associated with secondhand smoke and other types of environmental smoke.

2. Identify: These surveys, along with focus group interviews with select participants, will help reveal barriers standing in the way of reducing the women’s exposure to secondhand smoke—as well as ways to encourage habits to reduce risk.

3. Develop: All the information gained through surveys and conversations will then be analyzed and used to craft targeted, translated, and culturally appropriate materials on secondhand smoke, conveying communication strategies the women can use to persuade their partners to quit smoking and ways to build a smoke-free household.

4. Evaluate: The effectiveness of the new materials will be tested to assess the change in the women’s knowledge, as well as any uptick in taking steps to reduce exposure or sign up for screening.
 

Using the CHEST grant as a building block to more grants—and more information

Dr. Li and his collaborators are still in the early stages of using the CHEST grant: gathering up participants and surveying them.

But there’s much ahead. With the CHEST grant in hand, Dr. Li plans to apply for grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH): first, an NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) to help achieve that fourth aim of evaluating how the intervention works. And next, they’ll apply for an NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01), which will fund an even larger trial.

“Not many studies focus on identifying the risk factors with lung cancer associated with Chinese American [women who have never smoked],” Dr. Li said. “This is why we want to focus on this area to provide more knowledge and make more contributions to research.”

Projects like this are made possible by generous contributions from CHEST donors. Support the future of chest medicine by visiting https://chestnet.org/donate.

CHEST

In his prior research, Chien-Ching Li, PhD, MPH, focused on promoting lung cancer screening in Chinese American men, a population that frequently smokes heavily. But last year, he applied for a CHEST grant that’s shifting his focus to another demographic: Chinese American women who do not smoke, especially those with limited English proficiency.

“They are developing lung cancer, and we don’t know why,” said Dr. Li, an associate professor of Health Systems Management at Rush University.

In the United States, Asian American women who don’t smoke, and never have, are twice as likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer as white women with similar nonsmoking habits. In fact, 57% of Asian American women diagnosed with lung cancer never smoked cigarettes.

What’s behind this rise in lung cancer in women who have never smoked compared with men, and particularly in Asian American women? One possibility: While Chinese American women may never smoke themselves, they frequently live with partners or family members who do. (About 28% of Chinese American men smoke heavily, Dr. Li said.)

“We think secondhand smoke might be one of the key risk factors, because they’re living with people who smoke,” Dr. Li said. His prior research shows that the majority of Chinese American men in greater Chicagoland—89%—are married, and many of them smoke or have a history of smoking.

With the CHEST grant Dr. Li received in October 2023, he’s working to increase awareness among Chinese American women about the risks of secondhand smoke and “reduce the health disparity in lung cancer among women,” Dr. Li said.
 

Developing culturally sensitive materials for a high-risk group

While many lung cancer reduction efforts focus on people who smoke, there are plenty of pamphlets designed to inform about the risks incurred when breathing in secondhand smoke.

These handouts, however, aren’t always available in languages spoken by Chinese Americans. Nor is it as simple as hiring a translator; doing so may make the pamphlets readable to the women, but it won’t necessarily make the text culturally appropriate.

This is what Dr. Li—along with his coinvestigators, Alicia Matthews, PhD, a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University, and Hong Liu, PhD, of the Midwest Asian Health Association—seeks to change, with funding from the CHEST grant. Their goal is four-pronged:

1. Discovery: Dr. Li and his team are currently surveying Chinese American women who have never smoked but who live with people who smoke in greater Chicagoland. These surveys will help them learn more about what (if anything) this group knows about the health risks associated with secondhand smoke and other types of environmental smoke.

2. Identify: These surveys, along with focus group interviews with select participants, will help reveal barriers standing in the way of reducing the women’s exposure to secondhand smoke—as well as ways to encourage habits to reduce risk.

3. Develop: All the information gained through surveys and conversations will then be analyzed and used to craft targeted, translated, and culturally appropriate materials on secondhand smoke, conveying communication strategies the women can use to persuade their partners to quit smoking and ways to build a smoke-free household.

4. Evaluate: The effectiveness of the new materials will be tested to assess the change in the women’s knowledge, as well as any uptick in taking steps to reduce exposure or sign up for screening.
 

Using the CHEST grant as a building block to more grants—and more information

Dr. Li and his collaborators are still in the early stages of using the CHEST grant: gathering up participants and surveying them.

But there’s much ahead. With the CHEST grant in hand, Dr. Li plans to apply for grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH): first, an NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) to help achieve that fourth aim of evaluating how the intervention works. And next, they’ll apply for an NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01), which will fund an even larger trial.

“Not many studies focus on identifying the risk factors with lung cancer associated with Chinese American [women who have never smoked],” Dr. Li said. “This is why we want to focus on this area to provide more knowledge and make more contributions to research.”

Projects like this are made possible by generous contributions from CHEST donors. Support the future of chest medicine by visiting https://chestnet.org/donate.