Unexplained dyspnea is a common complaint among patients seen in pulmonary clinics, and can be difficult to define, quantify, and determine the etiology. The ATS official statement defined dyspnea as “a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that consists of qualitatively distinct sensations that vary in intensity” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185:435). A myriad of diseases can cause dyspnea, including cardiac, pulmonary, neuromuscular, psychological, and hematologic disorders; obesity, deconditioning, and the normal aging process may also contribute to dyspnea. Adding further diagnostic confusion, multiple causes may exist in a given patient.

Finding the cause or causes of dyspnea can be difficult and may require extensive testing, time, and cost. Initially, a history and physical exam are performed with more focused testing undertaken depending on most likely causes. For most patients, initial evaluation includes a CBC, TSH, pulmonary function tests, chest radiograph, and, often, a transthoracic echocardiogram. If these tests are unrevealing, or if clinical suspicion is high, more costly, invasive, and time-consuming tests are obtained. These may include bronchoprovocation testing, cardiac stress tests, chest CT scan, and, if warranted, right- and/or left-sided heart catheterization. Ideally, these tests are utilized appropriately based on the patient’s clinical presentation and the results of initial evaluation. In addition to high cost, invasive testing risks injury.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been called the “gold standard” test for evaluation of unexplained dyspnea (Palange P, et al. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:185).

Symptom-limited CPET measures multiple physiological variables during stress, potentially identifying the cause of dyspnea that is not evident by measurements made at rest. CPET may also differentiate the limiting factor in patients with multiple diseases that each could be contributing to dyspnea. CPET provides an objective measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness and may provide prognostic information. CPET typically consists of a symptom-limited maximal incremental exercise test using either a treadmill or cycle ergometer. The primary measurements include oxygen uptake (Vo₂), carbon dioxide output (Vco₂), minute ventilation (VE), ECG, blood pressure, oxygen saturation (Spo₂) and, depending on the indication, arterial blood gases at rest and peak exercise. An invasive CPET includes the above measurements and the addition of a pulmonary artery catheter and radial artery catheter allowing the assessment of ventricular filling pressures, pulmonary arterial pressures, cardiac output, and measures of oxygen transport. Invasive CPET is less commonly performed in clinical practice due to cost, high resource utilization, and greater risk of complications.

What is the evidence that CPET is the gold standard for evaluating dyspnea? Limited evidence supports this claim. Martinez and colleagues (Chest. 1994;105[1]:168) evaluated 50 patients presenting with unexplained dyspnea with normal CBC, thyroid studies, chest radiograph, and spirometry with no-invasive CPET. CPET was used to make an initial diagnosis, and this was compared with a definitive diagnosis based on additional testing guided by CPET findings and response to targeted therapy. Most patients (68%) eventually received a diagnossis of normal, deconditioned, hyperactive airway disease, or a psychogenic cause of dyspnea. The important findings from this study include: (1) CPET was able to identify cardiac or pulmonary disease, if present; (2) A normal CPET excluded significant cardiac or pulmonary disease in most patients suggesting that a normal CPET is useful in limiting subsequent testing; (3) In some patients, CPET wasn’t able to accurately differentiate cardiac disease from deconditioning as both exhibited an abnormal CPET pattern including low peak Vo₂, low Vo₂ at anaerobic threshold, decreased O₂ pulse, and often low peak heart rate. In more than 75% of patients, the CPET, and focused testing based on CPET findings, confidently identified the cause of dyspnea not explained by routine testing.

There is evidence that invasive CPET may provide diagnostic information when the cause of dyspnea is not identified using noninvasive testing. Huang and colleagues (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24[11]:1190) investigated the use of invasive CPET in 530 patients who had undergone extensive evaluation for dyspnea, including noninvasive CPET in 30% of patients, and the diagnosis remained unclear. The cause of dyspnea was determinedin all patients and included: exercise-induced pulmonary arterial hypertension (17%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (18%), dysautonomia or preload failure (21%), oxidative myopathy (25%), primary hyperventilation (8%), and various other conditions (11%). Most patients had been undergoing work up for unexplained dyspnea for a median of 511 days before evaluation in the dyspnea clinic. Huang et al’s study demonstrates some of the limitations of noninvasive CPET, including distinguishing cardiac limitation from dysautonomia or preload failure, deconditioning, oxidative myopathies, and mild pulmonary vascular disease. This study didn’t answer how many patients having noninvasive CPET would need an invasive study to get their diagnosis.

A limitation of both the Martinez et al and Huang et al studies is that they were conducted at subspecialty dyspnea clinics located in large referral centers and may not be representative of patients seen in general pulmonary clinics for the evaluation of dyspnea. This may result in over-representation of less common diseases, such as oxidative myopathies and dysautonomia or preload failure. Even with this limitation, these two studies showed that CPETs have the potential to expedite diagnoses and treatment in patients with unexplained dyspnea.

More investigation is needed to understand the clinical utility, and potential cost savings, of CPET for patients referred to general pulmonary clinics with unexplained dyspnea. We retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent CPET for unexplained dyspnea from 2017 to 2019 at Intermountain Medical Center (Cook CP. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: Suppl. 66, 1939). Nearly 50% of the patients undergoing CPET were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or normal. In patients under the age of 60 years, 64% were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or a normal study. Conversely, 70% of patients over the age of 60 years had an abnormal cardiac or pulmonary limitation.

We also evaluated whether CPET affected diagnostic testing patterns in the 6 months following testing. We determined that potentially inappropriate testing was performed in only 13% of patients after obtaining a CPET diagnosis. These data suggest that CPET results affect ordering provider behavior. Also, in younger patients, in whom initial evaluation is unrevealing of cardiopulmonary disease, a CPET could be performed early in the evaluation process. This may result in decreased health care cost and time to diagnosis. At our institution, CPET is less expensive than a transthoracic echocardiogram.

So, is CPET worthy of its status as the gold standard for determining the etiology of unexplained dysp-nea? The answer for noninvasive CPET is a definite “maybe.” There is evidence that some CPET patterns support a specific diagnosis. However, referring providers may be disappointed by CPET reports that do not provide a definitive cause for a patient’s dyspnea. An abnormal cardiac limitation may be caused by systolic or diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, preload failure or dysautonomia, deconditioning, and oxidative myopathy. Even in these situations, a specific CPET pattern may limit the differential diagnosis and facilitate a more focused and cost-effective evaluation. A normal CPET provides reassurance that significant disease is not causing the patient’s dyspnea and prevent further unnecessary and costly evaluation.

Unexplained dyspnea is a common complaint among patients seen in pulmonary clinics, and can be difficult to define, quantify, and determine the etiology. The ATS official statement defined dyspnea as “a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that consists of qualitatively distinct sensations that vary in intensity” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185:435). A myriad of diseases can cause dyspnea, including cardiac, pulmonary, neuromuscular, psychological, and hematologic disorders; obesity, deconditioning, and the normal aging process may also contribute to dyspnea. Adding further diagnostic confusion, multiple causes may exist in a given patient.

Finding the cause or causes of dyspnea can be difficult and may require extensive testing, time, and cost. Initially, a history and physical exam are performed with more focused testing undertaken depending on most likely causes. For most patients, initial evaluation includes a CBC, TSH, pulmonary function tests, chest radiograph, and, often, a transthoracic echocardiogram. If these tests are unrevealing, or if clinical suspicion is high, more costly, invasive, and time-consuming tests are obtained. These may include bronchoprovocation testing, cardiac stress tests, chest CT scan, and, if warranted, right- and/or left-sided heart catheterization. Ideally, these tests are utilized appropriately based on the patient’s clinical presentation and the results of initial evaluation. In addition to high cost, invasive testing risks injury.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been called the “gold standard” test for evaluation of unexplained dyspnea (Palange P, et al. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:185).

Symptom-limited CPET measures multiple physiological variables during stress, potentially identifying the cause of dyspnea that is not evident by measurements made at rest. CPET may also differentiate the limiting factor in patients with multiple diseases that each could be contributing to dyspnea. CPET provides an objective measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness and may provide prognostic information. CPET typically consists of a symptom-limited maximal incremental exercise test using either a treadmill or cycle ergometer. The primary measurements include oxygen uptake (Vo₂), carbon dioxide output (Vco₂), minute ventilation (VE), ECG, blood pressure, oxygen saturation (Spo₂) and, depending on the indication, arterial blood gases at rest and peak exercise. An invasive CPET includes the above measurements and the addition of a pulmonary artery catheter and radial artery catheter allowing the assessment of ventricular filling pressures, pulmonary arterial pressures, cardiac output, and measures of oxygen transport. Invasive CPET is less commonly performed in clinical practice due to cost, high resource utilization, and greater risk of complications.

What is the evidence that CPET is the gold standard for evaluating dyspnea? Limited evidence supports this claim. Martinez and colleagues (Chest. 1994;105[1]:168) evaluated 50 patients presenting with unexplained dyspnea with normal CBC, thyroid studies, chest radiograph, and spirometry with no-invasive CPET. CPET was used to make an initial diagnosis, and this was compared with a definitive diagnosis based on additional testing guided by CPET findings and response to targeted therapy. Most patients (68%) eventually received a diagnossis of normal, deconditioned, hyperactive airway disease, or a psychogenic cause of dyspnea. The important findings from this study include: (1) CPET was able to identify cardiac or pulmonary disease, if present; (2) A normal CPET excluded significant cardiac or pulmonary disease in most patients suggesting that a normal CPET is useful in limiting subsequent testing; (3) In some patients, CPET wasn’t able to accurately differentiate cardiac disease from deconditioning as both exhibited an abnormal CPET pattern including low peak Vo₂, low Vo₂ at anaerobic threshold, decreased O₂ pulse, and often low peak heart rate. In more than 75% of patients, the CPET, and focused testing based on CPET findings, confidently identified the cause of dyspnea not explained by routine testing.

There is evidence that invasive CPET may provide diagnostic information when the cause of dyspnea is not identified using noninvasive testing. Huang and colleagues (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24[11]:1190) investigated the use of invasive CPET in 530 patients who had undergone extensive evaluation for dyspnea, including noninvasive CPET in 30% of patients, and the diagnosis remained unclear. The cause of dyspnea was determinedin all patients and included: exercise-induced pulmonary arterial hypertension (17%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (18%), dysautonomia or preload failure (21%), oxidative myopathy (25%), primary hyperventilation (8%), and various other conditions (11%). Most patients had been undergoing work up for unexplained dyspnea for a median of 511 days before evaluation in the dyspnea clinic. Huang et al’s study demonstrates some of the limitations of noninvasive CPET, including distinguishing cardiac limitation from dysautonomia or preload failure, deconditioning, oxidative myopathies, and mild pulmonary vascular disease. This study didn’t answer how many patients having noninvasive CPET would need an invasive study to get their diagnosis.

A limitation of both the Martinez et al and Huang et al studies is that they were conducted at subspecialty dyspnea clinics located in large referral centers and may not be representative of patients seen in general pulmonary clinics for the evaluation of dyspnea. This may result in over-representation of less common diseases, such as oxidative myopathies and dysautonomia or preload failure. Even with this limitation, these two studies showed that CPETs have the potential to expedite diagnoses and treatment in patients with unexplained dyspnea.

More investigation is needed to understand the clinical utility, and potential cost savings, of CPET for patients referred to general pulmonary clinics with unexplained dyspnea. We retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent CPET for unexplained dyspnea from 2017 to 2019 at Intermountain Medical Center (Cook CP. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: Suppl. 66, 1939). Nearly 50% of the patients undergoing CPET were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or normal. In patients under the age of 60 years, 64% were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or a normal study. Conversely, 70% of patients over the age of 60 years had an abnormal cardiac or pulmonary limitation.

We also evaluated whether CPET affected diagnostic testing patterns in the 6 months following testing. We determined that potentially inappropriate testing was performed in only 13% of patients after obtaining a CPET diagnosis. These data suggest that CPET results affect ordering provider behavior. Also, in younger patients, in whom initial evaluation is unrevealing of cardiopulmonary disease, a CPET could be performed early in the evaluation process. This may result in decreased health care cost and time to diagnosis. At our institution, CPET is less expensive than a transthoracic echocardiogram.

So, is CPET worthy of its status as the gold standard for determining the etiology of unexplained dysp-nea? The answer for noninvasive CPET is a definite “maybe.” There is evidence that some CPET patterns support a specific diagnosis. However, referring providers may be disappointed by CPET reports that do not provide a definitive cause for a patient’s dyspnea. An abnormal cardiac limitation may be caused by systolic or diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, preload failure or dysautonomia, deconditioning, and oxidative myopathy. Even in these situations, a specific CPET pattern may limit the differential diagnosis and facilitate a more focused and cost-effective evaluation. A normal CPET provides reassurance that significant disease is not causing the patient’s dyspnea and prevent further unnecessary and costly evaluation.

Unexplained dyspnea is a common complaint among patients seen in pulmonary clinics, and can be difficult to define, quantify, and determine the etiology. The ATS official statement defined dyspnea as “a subjective experience of breathing discomfort that consists of qualitatively distinct sensations that vary in intensity” (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012; 185:435). A myriad of diseases can cause dyspnea, including cardiac, pulmonary, neuromuscular, psychological, and hematologic disorders; obesity, deconditioning, and the normal aging process may also contribute to dyspnea. Adding further diagnostic confusion, multiple causes may exist in a given patient.

Finding the cause or causes of dyspnea can be difficult and may require extensive testing, time, and cost. Initially, a history and physical exam are performed with more focused testing undertaken depending on most likely causes. For most patients, initial evaluation includes a CBC, TSH, pulmonary function tests, chest radiograph, and, often, a transthoracic echocardiogram. If these tests are unrevealing, or if clinical suspicion is high, more costly, invasive, and time-consuming tests are obtained. These may include bronchoprovocation testing, cardiac stress tests, chest CT scan, and, if warranted, right- and/or left-sided heart catheterization. Ideally, these tests are utilized appropriately based on the patient’s clinical presentation and the results of initial evaluation. In addition to high cost, invasive testing risks injury.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been called the “gold standard” test for evaluation of unexplained dyspnea (Palange P, et al. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:185).

Symptom-limited CPET measures multiple physiological variables during stress, potentially identifying the cause of dyspnea that is not evident by measurements made at rest. CPET may also differentiate the limiting factor in patients with multiple diseases that each could be contributing to dyspnea. CPET provides an objective measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness and may provide prognostic information. CPET typically consists of a symptom-limited maximal incremental exercise test using either a treadmill or cycle ergometer. The primary measurements include oxygen uptake (Vo₂), carbon dioxide output (Vco₂), minute ventilation (VE), ECG, blood pressure, oxygen saturation (Spo₂) and, depending on the indication, arterial blood gases at rest and peak exercise. An invasive CPET includes the above measurements and the addition of a pulmonary artery catheter and radial artery catheter allowing the assessment of ventricular filling pressures, pulmonary arterial pressures, cardiac output, and measures of oxygen transport. Invasive CPET is less commonly performed in clinical practice due to cost, high resource utilization, and greater risk of complications.

What is the evidence that CPET is the gold standard for evaluating dyspnea? Limited evidence supports this claim. Martinez and colleagues (Chest. 1994;105[1]:168) evaluated 50 patients presenting with unexplained dyspnea with normal CBC, thyroid studies, chest radiograph, and spirometry with no-invasive CPET. CPET was used to make an initial diagnosis, and this was compared with a definitive diagnosis based on additional testing guided by CPET findings and response to targeted therapy. Most patients (68%) eventually received a diagnossis of normal, deconditioned, hyperactive airway disease, or a psychogenic cause of dyspnea. The important findings from this study include: (1) CPET was able to identify cardiac or pulmonary disease, if present; (2) A normal CPET excluded significant cardiac or pulmonary disease in most patients suggesting that a normal CPET is useful in limiting subsequent testing; (3) In some patients, CPET wasn’t able to accurately differentiate cardiac disease from deconditioning as both exhibited an abnormal CPET pattern including low peak Vo₂, low Vo₂ at anaerobic threshold, decreased O₂ pulse, and often low peak heart rate. In more than 75% of patients, the CPET, and focused testing based on CPET findings, confidently identified the cause of dyspnea not explained by routine testing.

There is evidence that invasive CPET may provide diagnostic information when the cause of dyspnea is not identified using noninvasive testing. Huang and colleagues (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24[11]:1190) investigated the use of invasive CPET in 530 patients who had undergone extensive evaluation for dyspnea, including noninvasive CPET in 30% of patients, and the diagnosis remained unclear. The cause of dyspnea was determinedin all patients and included: exercise-induced pulmonary arterial hypertension (17%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (18%), dysautonomia or preload failure (21%), oxidative myopathy (25%), primary hyperventilation (8%), and various other conditions (11%). Most patients had been undergoing work up for unexplained dyspnea for a median of 511 days before evaluation in the dyspnea clinic. Huang et al’s study demonstrates some of the limitations of noninvasive CPET, including distinguishing cardiac limitation from dysautonomia or preload failure, deconditioning, oxidative myopathies, and mild pulmonary vascular disease. This study didn’t answer how many patients having noninvasive CPET would need an invasive study to get their diagnosis.

A limitation of both the Martinez et al and Huang et al studies is that they were conducted at subspecialty dyspnea clinics located in large referral centers and may not be representative of patients seen in general pulmonary clinics for the evaluation of dyspnea. This may result in over-representation of less common diseases, such as oxidative myopathies and dysautonomia or preload failure. Even with this limitation, these two studies showed that CPETs have the potential to expedite diagnoses and treatment in patients with unexplained dyspnea.

More investigation is needed to understand the clinical utility, and potential cost savings, of CPET for patients referred to general pulmonary clinics with unexplained dyspnea. We retrospectively reviewed 89 patients who underwent CPET for unexplained dyspnea from 2017 to 2019 at Intermountain Medical Center (Cook CP. Eur Respir J. 2022; 60: Suppl. 66, 1939). Nearly 50% of the patients undergoing CPET were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or normal. In patients under the age of 60 years, 64% were diagnosed with obesity, deconditioning, or a normal study. Conversely, 70% of patients over the age of 60 years had an abnormal cardiac or pulmonary limitation.

We also evaluated whether CPET affected diagnostic testing patterns in the 6 months following testing. We determined that potentially inappropriate testing was performed in only 13% of patients after obtaining a CPET diagnosis. These data suggest that CPET results affect ordering provider behavior. Also, in younger patients, in whom initial evaluation is unrevealing of cardiopulmonary disease, a CPET could be performed early in the evaluation process. This may result in decreased health care cost and time to diagnosis. At our institution, CPET is less expensive than a transthoracic echocardiogram.

So, is CPET worthy of its status as the gold standard for determining the etiology of unexplained dysp-nea? The answer for noninvasive CPET is a definite “maybe.” There is evidence that some CPET patterns support a specific diagnosis. However, referring providers may be disappointed by CPET reports that do not provide a definitive cause for a patient’s dyspnea. An abnormal cardiac limitation may be caused by systolic or diastolic dysfunction, myocardial ischemia, preload failure or dysautonomia, deconditioning, and oxidative myopathy. Even in these situations, a specific CPET pattern may limit the differential diagnosis and facilitate a more focused and cost-effective evaluation. A normal CPET provides reassurance that significant disease is not causing the patient’s dyspnea and prevent further unnecessary and costly evaluation.

At a median follow-up of 47.2 months, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta) significantly improved overall survival compared with standard second-line treatments in patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, according to a phase 3 investigation reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.

The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.

Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.

“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.

Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).


 

Study details

Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.

Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).

At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).

The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.

Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.

Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.

The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.

At a median follow-up of 47.2 months, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta) significantly improved overall survival compared with standard second-line treatments in patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, according to a phase 3 investigation reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.

The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.

Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.

“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.

Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).


 

Study details

Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.

Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).

At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).

The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.

Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.

Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.

The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.

At a median follow-up of 47.2 months, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta) significantly improved overall survival compared with standard second-line treatments in patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma, according to a phase 3 investigation reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy was approved for second-line treatment in 2022 based on better event-free survival, but standard second-line treatment – chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant in responders – still remains the prevailing approach, explained Jason Westin, MD, director of lymphoma research at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Dr. Westin, lead investigator, presented the trial, dubbed ZUMA-7, at the ASCO meeting.

The new findings might change that. ZUMA-7 “conclusively demonstrates that trying chemotherapy in the second line and saving cell therapy for the third line is an inferior approach ... ZUMA-7 confirms axi-cel is a second-line standard of care for patients with refractory or early relapsed large B cell lymphoma based on superior overall survival,” said Dr. Westin.

Study discussant Asher A. Chanan-Khan, MD, a CAR-T specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., agreed.

“This data must alter the current standard of care making CAR-T or axi-cel, based on the data we heard, a preferred second-line treatment ... Moving CAR-T earlier in the treatment paradigm is likely a better choice for our patients,” he said.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentations.

Dr. Westin noted that axi-cel is now under investigation in ZUMA-23 for first-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL).


 

Study details

Zuma-7 randomized 180 LBCL patients to a one-time axi-cel infusion and 179 to standard care. Patients were refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy or had relapsed within 12 months; just 36% of patients in the standard care group did well enough on treatment to go on to stem-cell transplant.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months with standard care.

Significantly, the better PFS appears to have translated into better overall survival (OS).

At a median of almost 4 years, 82 patients in the axi-cel group had died, compared with 95 patients with standard care who had died. Estimated 4-year OS was 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46% with standard care (HR 0.73, P = .03).

The OS benefit held in high-risk subgroups, including patients over 64 years old, those refractory to first-line treatment, and patients with high-grade disease.

Adverse events were in keeping with labeling. Cytokine release syndrome was more common in the axi-cel arm, including grade 3 or worse CRS in 6% of axi-cel patients versus none on standard care. Grade 3 or worse infections were also more common at 16.5% versus 11.9% with standard care. Over 11% of axi-cel patients developed hypogammaglobulinemia versus 0.6% in the standard care group.

Overall, there were no new serious or fatal adverse events since the initial PFS results were reported in 2022, when eight fatal adverse events were reported with axi-cel versus two with standard care.

The work was funded by axi-cel maker Kite Pharma, a subsidiary of Gilead. Investigators included Kite/Gilead employees and others who reported financial relationships with the companies, including Dr. Westin, a Kite/Gilead researcher and adviser. Dr. Chanan-Khan disclosed ties with Cellectar, Starton Therapeutics, Ascentage Pharma, and others.

In recent months, we have seen the results of the much awaited Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) trial showing that a restrictive fluid and early vasopressor strategy initiated on arrival of patients with sepsis and hypotension in the ED did not result in decreased mortality compared with a liberal fluid approach (PETAL Network. www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2202707). The March 2023 issue of CHEST Physician provided a synopsis of the trial highlighting several limitations (Splete H. CHEST Physician. 2023;18[3]:1). Last year in 2022, the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock (CLASSIC) trial also showed no difference in mortality with restrictive fluid compared with standard fluid in patients with septic shock in the ICU already receiving vasopressor therapy (Meyhoff TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[26]:2459). Did CLOVERS and CLASSIC resolve the ongoing debate about the timing and quantity of fluid resuscitation in sepsis? Did their results suggest a “you can do what you want” approach? Is the management of sepsis and septic shock limited to fluids vs vasopressors? Hopefully, the ongoing studies ARISE FLUIDS (NCT04569942), EVIS (NCT05179499), FRESHLY (NCT05453565), 1BED (NCT05273034), and REDUCE (NCT04931485) will further address these questions.

In the meantime, I continue to admit and care for patients with sepsis in the ICU. One example was a 72-year-old woman with a history of stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease presenting with 3 days of progressive cough and dyspnea. In the ED, temperature was 38.2° C, heart rate 120 beats per min, respiratory rate 28/min, blood pressure 82/48 mm Hg, and weight 92 kg. She had audible crackles in the left lower lung. Her laboratory and imaging results supported a diagnosis of sepsis due to severe community-acquired pneumonia, including the following values: white blood cell 18.2 million/mm3; lactate 3.8 mmol/L; and creatinine 4.3 mg/dL.

While in the ED, the patient received 1 liter of crystalloid fluids and appropriate broad spectrum antibiotics. Repeat lactate value was 2.8 mmol/L. Patient’s blood pressure then decreased to 85/42 mm Hg. Norepinephrine was started peripherally and titrated to 6 mcg/min to achieve blood pressure 104/56 mm Hg. No further fluid administration was given, and the patient was admitted to the medical ICU. On admission, a repeat lactate had increased to 3.4 mmol/L with blood pressure of 80/45 mm Hg. Instead of further escalating vasopressor administration, she received 2 L of fluid and continued at 150 mL/h. Shortly after, norepinephrine was titrated off. Fluid resuscitation was then deescalated. We transfered the patient to the general ward within 12 hours of ICU admission.

Could we have avoided ICU admission and critical care resource utilization if the patient had received more optimal fluid resuscitation in the ED?

While our fear of fluids (or hydrophobia) may be unwarranted, the management of this patient was a common example of fluid restriction in sepsis (Jaehne AK, et al. Crit Care Med. 2016;44[12]:2263). By clinical criteria, she was in septic shock (requiring vasopressor) and appropriately required ICU admission. But, I would posit that the patient had severe sepsis based on pre-Sepsis 3 criteria. Optimal initial fluid resuscitation would have prevented her from requiring vasopressor and progressing to septic shock with ICU admission. Unfortunately, the patient’s care reflected the objective of CLOVERS and its results. Other than the lack of decreased mortality, decreased ventilator use, decreased renal replacement therapy, and decreased hospital length of stay, restricting fluids resulted in an increase of 8.1% (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 12.8) ICU utilization. Furthermore, the data and safety monitoring committee halted the trial for futility at two-thirds of enrollment. One must wonder if CLOVERS had completed its intended enrollment of 2,320 patients, negative outcomes would have occurred.

Should an astute clinician interpret the results of the CLOVERS and CLASSIC trials as “Fluids, it doesn’t matter, so I can do what I want?” Absolutely not! The literature is abundant with studies showing that increasing dose and/or number of vasopressors is associated with higher mortality in septic shock. One example is a recent multicenter prospective cohort study examining the association of vasopressor dosing during the first 24 hours and 30-day mortality in septic shock over 33 hospitals (Roberts RJ, et al. Crit Care Med. 2020;48[10]:1445).

Six hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled with 31% 30-day mortality. In 24 hours after shock diagnosis, patients received a median of 3.4 (1.9-5.3) L of fluids and 8.5 mcg/min norepinephrine equivalent. During the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing was associated with increased odds of mortality. Every 10 mcg/min increase in norepinephrine over the 24-hour period was associated with a 33% increased odds of mortality. Patients who received no fluids but 35 mcg/min norepinephrine in 6 hours had the highest mortality of 50%. As fluid volume increased, the association between vasopressor dosing and mortality decreased, such that at least 2 L of fluid during the first 6 hours was required for this association to become nonsignificant. Based on these results and a number of past studies, we should be cautious in believing that a resuscitation strategy favoring vasopressors would result in a better outcome.

Shock resuscitation is complex, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. With the present climate, the success of resuscitation has been simplified to assessing fluid responsiveness. Trainees learn to identify the inferior vena cava and lung B-lines by ultrasound. With more advanced technology, stroke volume variation is considered. And, let us not forget the passive leg raise. Rarely can our fellows and residents recite the components of oxygen delivery as targets of shock resuscitation: preload, afterload, contractility, hemoglobin, and oxygen saturation. Another patient example comes to mind when fluid responsiveness alone is inadequate.

Our patient was a 46-year-old man now day 4 in the ICU with Klebsiella bacteremia and acute cholecystitis undergoing medical management. His comorbidities included diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction 35%. He was supported sson mechanical ventilation, norepinephrine 20 mcg/min, and receiving appropriate antibiotics. For hemodynamic monitoring, a central venous and arterial catheter have been placed. The patient had a heart rate 92 beats per min, mean arterial pressure (MAP) 57 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) 26 mm Hg, stroke volume variation (SVV) 9%, cardiac output (CO) 2.5 L/min, and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) 42%.

Based on these parameters, we initiated dobutamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min, which was then titrated to 20 mcg/kg/min over 2 hours to achieve ScvO₂ 72%. Interestingly, CVP had decreased to 18 mm Hg, SVV increased to 16%, with CO 4.5 L/min. MAP also increased to 68 mm Hg. We then administered 1-L fluid bolus with the elevated SVV. Given the patient’s underlying cardiomyopathy, CVP < 20 mm Hg appeared to indicate a state of fluid responsiveness. After our fluid administration, heart rate 98 beats per min, MAP 70 mm Hg, CVP increased to 21 mm Hg, SVV 12%, CO 4.7 L/min, and ScvO₂ 74%. In acknowledging a mixed hypovolemic, cardiogenic, and septic shock, we had optimized his hemodynamic state. Importantly, during this exercise of hemodynamic manipulation, we were able to decrease norepinephrine to 8 mcg/min, maintaining dobutamine at 20 mcg/kg/min.

The above case illustrates that the hemodynamic perturbations in sepsis and septic shock are not simple. Patients do not present with a single shock state. An infection progressing to shock often is confounded by hypovolemia and underlying comorbidities, such as cardiac dysfunction. Without considering the complex physiology, our desire to continue the debate of fluids vs vasopressors is on the brink of taking us back several decades when the management of sepsis was to start a fluid bolus, administer “Rocephin,” and initiate dopamine. But I remind myself that we have made advances – now it’s 1 L lactated Ringer’s, administer “vanco and zosyn,” and initiate norepinephrine.

In recent months, we have seen the results of the much awaited Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) trial showing that a restrictive fluid and early vasopressor strategy initiated on arrival of patients with sepsis and hypotension in the ED did not result in decreased mortality compared with a liberal fluid approach (PETAL Network. www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2202707). The March 2023 issue of CHEST Physician provided a synopsis of the trial highlighting several limitations (Splete H. CHEST Physician. 2023;18[3]:1). Last year in 2022, the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock (CLASSIC) trial also showed no difference in mortality with restrictive fluid compared with standard fluid in patients with septic shock in the ICU already receiving vasopressor therapy (Meyhoff TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[26]:2459). Did CLOVERS and CLASSIC resolve the ongoing debate about the timing and quantity of fluid resuscitation in sepsis? Did their results suggest a “you can do what you want” approach? Is the management of sepsis and septic shock limited to fluids vs vasopressors? Hopefully, the ongoing studies ARISE FLUIDS (NCT04569942), EVIS (NCT05179499), FRESHLY (NCT05453565), 1BED (NCT05273034), and REDUCE (NCT04931485) will further address these questions.

In the meantime, I continue to admit and care for patients with sepsis in the ICU. One example was a 72-year-old woman with a history of stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease presenting with 3 days of progressive cough and dyspnea. In the ED, temperature was 38.2° C, heart rate 120 beats per min, respiratory rate 28/min, blood pressure 82/48 mm Hg, and weight 92 kg. She had audible crackles in the left lower lung. Her laboratory and imaging results supported a diagnosis of sepsis due to severe community-acquired pneumonia, including the following values: white blood cell 18.2 million/mm3; lactate 3.8 mmol/L; and creatinine 4.3 mg/dL.

While in the ED, the patient received 1 liter of crystalloid fluids and appropriate broad spectrum antibiotics. Repeat lactate value was 2.8 mmol/L. Patient’s blood pressure then decreased to 85/42 mm Hg. Norepinephrine was started peripherally and titrated to 6 mcg/min to achieve blood pressure 104/56 mm Hg. No further fluid administration was given, and the patient was admitted to the medical ICU. On admission, a repeat lactate had increased to 3.4 mmol/L with blood pressure of 80/45 mm Hg. Instead of further escalating vasopressor administration, she received 2 L of fluid and continued at 150 mL/h. Shortly after, norepinephrine was titrated off. Fluid resuscitation was then deescalated. We transfered the patient to the general ward within 12 hours of ICU admission.

Could we have avoided ICU admission and critical care resource utilization if the patient had received more optimal fluid resuscitation in the ED?

While our fear of fluids (or hydrophobia) may be unwarranted, the management of this patient was a common example of fluid restriction in sepsis (Jaehne AK, et al. Crit Care Med. 2016;44[12]:2263). By clinical criteria, she was in septic shock (requiring vasopressor) and appropriately required ICU admission. But, I would posit that the patient had severe sepsis based on pre-Sepsis 3 criteria. Optimal initial fluid resuscitation would have prevented her from requiring vasopressor and progressing to septic shock with ICU admission. Unfortunately, the patient’s care reflected the objective of CLOVERS and its results. Other than the lack of decreased mortality, decreased ventilator use, decreased renal replacement therapy, and decreased hospital length of stay, restricting fluids resulted in an increase of 8.1% (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 12.8) ICU utilization. Furthermore, the data and safety monitoring committee halted the trial for futility at two-thirds of enrollment. One must wonder if CLOVERS had completed its intended enrollment of 2,320 patients, negative outcomes would have occurred.

Should an astute clinician interpret the results of the CLOVERS and CLASSIC trials as “Fluids, it doesn’t matter, so I can do what I want?” Absolutely not! The literature is abundant with studies showing that increasing dose and/or number of vasopressors is associated with higher mortality in septic shock. One example is a recent multicenter prospective cohort study examining the association of vasopressor dosing during the first 24 hours and 30-day mortality in septic shock over 33 hospitals (Roberts RJ, et al. Crit Care Med. 2020;48[10]:1445).

Six hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled with 31% 30-day mortality. In 24 hours after shock diagnosis, patients received a median of 3.4 (1.9-5.3) L of fluids and 8.5 mcg/min norepinephrine equivalent. During the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing was associated with increased odds of mortality. Every 10 mcg/min increase in norepinephrine over the 24-hour period was associated with a 33% increased odds of mortality. Patients who received no fluids but 35 mcg/min norepinephrine in 6 hours had the highest mortality of 50%. As fluid volume increased, the association between vasopressor dosing and mortality decreased, such that at least 2 L of fluid during the first 6 hours was required for this association to become nonsignificant. Based on these results and a number of past studies, we should be cautious in believing that a resuscitation strategy favoring vasopressors would result in a better outcome.

Shock resuscitation is complex, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. With the present climate, the success of resuscitation has been simplified to assessing fluid responsiveness. Trainees learn to identify the inferior vena cava and lung B-lines by ultrasound. With more advanced technology, stroke volume variation is considered. And, let us not forget the passive leg raise. Rarely can our fellows and residents recite the components of oxygen delivery as targets of shock resuscitation: preload, afterload, contractility, hemoglobin, and oxygen saturation. Another patient example comes to mind when fluid responsiveness alone is inadequate.

Our patient was a 46-year-old man now day 4 in the ICU with Klebsiella bacteremia and acute cholecystitis undergoing medical management. His comorbidities included diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction 35%. He was supported sson mechanical ventilation, norepinephrine 20 mcg/min, and receiving appropriate antibiotics. For hemodynamic monitoring, a central venous and arterial catheter have been placed. The patient had a heart rate 92 beats per min, mean arterial pressure (MAP) 57 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) 26 mm Hg, stroke volume variation (SVV) 9%, cardiac output (CO) 2.5 L/min, and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) 42%.

Based on these parameters, we initiated dobutamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min, which was then titrated to 20 mcg/kg/min over 2 hours to achieve ScvO₂ 72%. Interestingly, CVP had decreased to 18 mm Hg, SVV increased to 16%, with CO 4.5 L/min. MAP also increased to 68 mm Hg. We then administered 1-L fluid bolus with the elevated SVV. Given the patient’s underlying cardiomyopathy, CVP < 20 mm Hg appeared to indicate a state of fluid responsiveness. After our fluid administration, heart rate 98 beats per min, MAP 70 mm Hg, CVP increased to 21 mm Hg, SVV 12%, CO 4.7 L/min, and ScvO₂ 74%. In acknowledging a mixed hypovolemic, cardiogenic, and septic shock, we had optimized his hemodynamic state. Importantly, during this exercise of hemodynamic manipulation, we were able to decrease norepinephrine to 8 mcg/min, maintaining dobutamine at 20 mcg/kg/min.

The above case illustrates that the hemodynamic perturbations in sepsis and septic shock are not simple. Patients do not present with a single shock state. An infection progressing to shock often is confounded by hypovolemia and underlying comorbidities, such as cardiac dysfunction. Without considering the complex physiology, our desire to continue the debate of fluids vs vasopressors is on the brink of taking us back several decades when the management of sepsis was to start a fluid bolus, administer “Rocephin,” and initiate dopamine. But I remind myself that we have made advances – now it’s 1 L lactated Ringer’s, administer “vanco and zosyn,” and initiate norepinephrine.

In recent months, we have seen the results of the much awaited Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) trial showing that a restrictive fluid and early vasopressor strategy initiated on arrival of patients with sepsis and hypotension in the ED did not result in decreased mortality compared with a liberal fluid approach (PETAL Network. www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2202707). The March 2023 issue of CHEST Physician provided a synopsis of the trial highlighting several limitations (Splete H. CHEST Physician. 2023;18[3]:1). Last year in 2022, the Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock (CLASSIC) trial also showed no difference in mortality with restrictive fluid compared with standard fluid in patients with septic shock in the ICU already receiving vasopressor therapy (Meyhoff TS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;386[26]:2459). Did CLOVERS and CLASSIC resolve the ongoing debate about the timing and quantity of fluid resuscitation in sepsis? Did their results suggest a “you can do what you want” approach? Is the management of sepsis and septic shock limited to fluids vs vasopressors? Hopefully, the ongoing studies ARISE FLUIDS (NCT04569942), EVIS (NCT05179499), FRESHLY (NCT05453565), 1BED (NCT05273034), and REDUCE (NCT04931485) will further address these questions.

In the meantime, I continue to admit and care for patients with sepsis in the ICU. One example was a 72-year-old woman with a history of stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease presenting with 3 days of progressive cough and dyspnea. In the ED, temperature was 38.2° C, heart rate 120 beats per min, respiratory rate 28/min, blood pressure 82/48 mm Hg, and weight 92 kg. She had audible crackles in the left lower lung. Her laboratory and imaging results supported a diagnosis of sepsis due to severe community-acquired pneumonia, including the following values: white blood cell 18.2 million/mm3; lactate 3.8 mmol/L; and creatinine 4.3 mg/dL.

While in the ED, the patient received 1 liter of crystalloid fluids and appropriate broad spectrum antibiotics. Repeat lactate value was 2.8 mmol/L. Patient’s blood pressure then decreased to 85/42 mm Hg. Norepinephrine was started peripherally and titrated to 6 mcg/min to achieve blood pressure 104/56 mm Hg. No further fluid administration was given, and the patient was admitted to the medical ICU. On admission, a repeat lactate had increased to 3.4 mmol/L with blood pressure of 80/45 mm Hg. Instead of further escalating vasopressor administration, she received 2 L of fluid and continued at 150 mL/h. Shortly after, norepinephrine was titrated off. Fluid resuscitation was then deescalated. We transfered the patient to the general ward within 12 hours of ICU admission.

Could we have avoided ICU admission and critical care resource utilization if the patient had received more optimal fluid resuscitation in the ED?

While our fear of fluids (or hydrophobia) may be unwarranted, the management of this patient was a common example of fluid restriction in sepsis (Jaehne AK, et al. Crit Care Med. 2016;44[12]:2263). By clinical criteria, she was in septic shock (requiring vasopressor) and appropriately required ICU admission. But, I would posit that the patient had severe sepsis based on pre-Sepsis 3 criteria. Optimal initial fluid resuscitation would have prevented her from requiring vasopressor and progressing to septic shock with ICU admission. Unfortunately, the patient’s care reflected the objective of CLOVERS and its results. Other than the lack of decreased mortality, decreased ventilator use, decreased renal replacement therapy, and decreased hospital length of stay, restricting fluids resulted in an increase of 8.1% (95% confidence interval 3.3 to 12.8) ICU utilization. Furthermore, the data and safety monitoring committee halted the trial for futility at two-thirds of enrollment. One must wonder if CLOVERS had completed its intended enrollment of 2,320 patients, negative outcomes would have occurred.

Should an astute clinician interpret the results of the CLOVERS and CLASSIC trials as “Fluids, it doesn’t matter, so I can do what I want?” Absolutely not! The literature is abundant with studies showing that increasing dose and/or number of vasopressors is associated with higher mortality in septic shock. One example is a recent multicenter prospective cohort study examining the association of vasopressor dosing during the first 24 hours and 30-day mortality in septic shock over 33 hospitals (Roberts RJ, et al. Crit Care Med. 2020;48[10]:1445).

Six hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled with 31% 30-day mortality. In 24 hours after shock diagnosis, patients received a median of 3.4 (1.9-5.3) L of fluids and 8.5 mcg/min norepinephrine equivalent. During the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing was associated with increased odds of mortality. Every 10 mcg/min increase in norepinephrine over the 24-hour period was associated with a 33% increased odds of mortality. Patients who received no fluids but 35 mcg/min norepinephrine in 6 hours had the highest mortality of 50%. As fluid volume increased, the association between vasopressor dosing and mortality decreased, such that at least 2 L of fluid during the first 6 hours was required for this association to become nonsignificant. Based on these results and a number of past studies, we should be cautious in believing that a resuscitation strategy favoring vasopressors would result in a better outcome.

Shock resuscitation is complex, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. With the present climate, the success of resuscitation has been simplified to assessing fluid responsiveness. Trainees learn to identify the inferior vena cava and lung B-lines by ultrasound. With more advanced technology, stroke volume variation is considered. And, let us not forget the passive leg raise. Rarely can our fellows and residents recite the components of oxygen delivery as targets of shock resuscitation: preload, afterload, contractility, hemoglobin, and oxygen saturation. Another patient example comes to mind when fluid responsiveness alone is inadequate.

Our patient was a 46-year-old man now day 4 in the ICU with Klebsiella bacteremia and acute cholecystitis undergoing medical management. His comorbidities included diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction 35%. He was supported sson mechanical ventilation, norepinephrine 20 mcg/min, and receiving appropriate antibiotics. For hemodynamic monitoring, a central venous and arterial catheter have been placed. The patient had a heart rate 92 beats per min, mean arterial pressure (MAP) 57 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) 26 mm Hg, stroke volume variation (SVV) 9%, cardiac output (CO) 2.5 L/min, and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) 42%.

Based on these parameters, we initiated dobutamine at 2.5 mcg/kg/min, which was then titrated to 20 mcg/kg/min over 2 hours to achieve ScvO₂ 72%. Interestingly, CVP had decreased to 18 mm Hg, SVV increased to 16%, with CO 4.5 L/min. MAP also increased to 68 mm Hg. We then administered 1-L fluid bolus with the elevated SVV. Given the patient’s underlying cardiomyopathy, CVP < 20 mm Hg appeared to indicate a state of fluid responsiveness. After our fluid administration, heart rate 98 beats per min, MAP 70 mm Hg, CVP increased to 21 mm Hg, SVV 12%, CO 4.7 L/min, and ScvO₂ 74%. In acknowledging a mixed hypovolemic, cardiogenic, and septic shock, we had optimized his hemodynamic state. Importantly, during this exercise of hemodynamic manipulation, we were able to decrease norepinephrine to 8 mcg/min, maintaining dobutamine at 20 mcg/kg/min.

The above case illustrates that the hemodynamic perturbations in sepsis and septic shock are not simple. Patients do not present with a single shock state. An infection progressing to shock often is confounded by hypovolemia and underlying comorbidities, such as cardiac dysfunction. Without considering the complex physiology, our desire to continue the debate of fluids vs vasopressors is on the brink of taking us back several decades when the management of sepsis was to start a fluid bolus, administer “Rocephin,” and initiate dopamine. But I remind myself that we have made advances – now it’s 1 L lactated Ringer’s, administer “vanco and zosyn,” and initiate norepinephrine.

Kangaroo mother care (KMC), with close skin-to-skin contact between mothers and their low-birthweight newborns, appears to reduce mortality risk by almost one-third, compared with conventional care, according to new research published online in BMJ Global Health.

Starting the contact, which involves mothers carrying the newborn in a sling, within 24 hours of birth and continuing it for at least 8 hours a day both appear to amplify the effect on reducing mortality and infection, the paper states.

Sindhu Sivanandan, MD, with the department of neonatology at Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India, and Mari Jeeva Sankar, MD, in the pediatrics department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, looked at existing studies to compare KMC with conventional care and to compare starting the intervention within 24 hours of birth versus a later start.

Mortality risk reduction

Analysis showed that, compared with conventional care, KMC appeared to cut mortality risk by 32% (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.86) during birth hospitalization or by 28 days after birth, while it seemed to reduce the risk of severe infection, such as sepsis, by 15% (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; low-certainty evidence.)

That mortality-risk reduction was found regardless of gestational age or weight of the child at enrolment, time of starting KMC, and whether the intervention was started in a hospital or community.

The studies that had compared early with late-initiated KMC showed a reduction in neonatal mortality of 33%.

Low- and middle-income countries have the highest rates of premature births (gestational age of less than 37 weeks) and low birthweight (less than 2,500 grams). Premature births and low birthweight both are key causes of death and disability.

The World Health Organization recommends KMC as the standard of care among low birthweight infants after clinical stabilization. The American Academy of Pediatrics also promotes immediate KMC.
 

Relevance in the U.S.

Grace Chan, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist and pediatrician with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said though the practice is promoted by the WHO and AAP, recommendations to families vary widely by providers.

She said the health benefits for KMC are numerous. One of the biggest is that skin-to-skin contact can help transfer heat to newborns who may have trouble regulating their own temperature. That is especially important in cold climates in places where there may be insufficient indoor heat.

She said it’s well-known that preterm babies are at higher risk for apnea, and listening to a mother’s heartbeat may stimulate the child to breathe regularly.

Additionally with KMC, there’s an inherent benefit of a mother or caregiver being able to see any change in a newborn’s color immediately when the baby is held so closely, as opposed to a nurse watching several babies at a time in a neonatal intensive care unit.

This is evidence that starting KMC right away is important, because the risk of death for premature and low-weight newborns is highest in the first 24 hours of life, Dr. Chan noted.
 

Barriers of time

There are some barriers, she noted, in that mothers or other caregivers caring for several young children may not have the time to carry a child in a sling for 8 or more hours at a time.

The authors conclude that their findings have policy implications, particularly for low- and middle-income countries: “KMC should be provided to all low birth weight and preterm infants irrespective of the settings – both health facilities and at home,” they wrote.

The authors caution that, “very low birth weight, extremely preterm neonates, and severely unstable neonates were often excluded from studies. More evidence is needed before extrapolating the study results in these high-risk groups.”

The study authors and Dr. Chan report no relevant financial relationships.

Kangaroo mother care (KMC), with close skin-to-skin contact between mothers and their low-birthweight newborns, appears to reduce mortality risk by almost one-third, compared with conventional care, according to new research published online in BMJ Global Health.

Starting the contact, which involves mothers carrying the newborn in a sling, within 24 hours of birth and continuing it for at least 8 hours a day both appear to amplify the effect on reducing mortality and infection, the paper states.

Sindhu Sivanandan, MD, with the department of neonatology at Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India, and Mari Jeeva Sankar, MD, in the pediatrics department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, looked at existing studies to compare KMC with conventional care and to compare starting the intervention within 24 hours of birth versus a later start.

Mortality risk reduction

Analysis showed that, compared with conventional care, KMC appeared to cut mortality risk by 32% (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.86) during birth hospitalization or by 28 days after birth, while it seemed to reduce the risk of severe infection, such as sepsis, by 15% (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; low-certainty evidence.)

That mortality-risk reduction was found regardless of gestational age or weight of the child at enrolment, time of starting KMC, and whether the intervention was started in a hospital or community.

The studies that had compared early with late-initiated KMC showed a reduction in neonatal mortality of 33%.

Low- and middle-income countries have the highest rates of premature births (gestational age of less than 37 weeks) and low birthweight (less than 2,500 grams). Premature births and low birthweight both are key causes of death and disability.

The World Health Organization recommends KMC as the standard of care among low birthweight infants after clinical stabilization. The American Academy of Pediatrics also promotes immediate KMC.
 

Relevance in the U.S.

Grace Chan, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist and pediatrician with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said though the practice is promoted by the WHO and AAP, recommendations to families vary widely by providers.

She said the health benefits for KMC are numerous. One of the biggest is that skin-to-skin contact can help transfer heat to newborns who may have trouble regulating their own temperature. That is especially important in cold climates in places where there may be insufficient indoor heat.

She said it’s well-known that preterm babies are at higher risk for apnea, and listening to a mother’s heartbeat may stimulate the child to breathe regularly.

Additionally with KMC, there’s an inherent benefit of a mother or caregiver being able to see any change in a newborn’s color immediately when the baby is held so closely, as opposed to a nurse watching several babies at a time in a neonatal intensive care unit.

This is evidence that starting KMC right away is important, because the risk of death for premature and low-weight newborns is highest in the first 24 hours of life, Dr. Chan noted.
 

Barriers of time

There are some barriers, she noted, in that mothers or other caregivers caring for several young children may not have the time to carry a child in a sling for 8 or more hours at a time.

The authors conclude that their findings have policy implications, particularly for low- and middle-income countries: “KMC should be provided to all low birth weight and preterm infants irrespective of the settings – both health facilities and at home,” they wrote.

The authors caution that, “very low birth weight, extremely preterm neonates, and severely unstable neonates were often excluded from studies. More evidence is needed before extrapolating the study results in these high-risk groups.”

The study authors and Dr. Chan report no relevant financial relationships.

Kangaroo mother care (KMC), with close skin-to-skin contact between mothers and their low-birthweight newborns, appears to reduce mortality risk by almost one-third, compared with conventional care, according to new research published online in BMJ Global Health.

Starting the contact, which involves mothers carrying the newborn in a sling, within 24 hours of birth and continuing it for at least 8 hours a day both appear to amplify the effect on reducing mortality and infection, the paper states.

Sindhu Sivanandan, MD, with the department of neonatology at Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India, and Mari Jeeva Sankar, MD, in the pediatrics department of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, looked at existing studies to compare KMC with conventional care and to compare starting the intervention within 24 hours of birth versus a later start.

Mortality risk reduction

Analysis showed that, compared with conventional care, KMC appeared to cut mortality risk by 32% (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.86) during birth hospitalization or by 28 days after birth, while it seemed to reduce the risk of severe infection, such as sepsis, by 15% (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; low-certainty evidence.)

That mortality-risk reduction was found regardless of gestational age or weight of the child at enrolment, time of starting KMC, and whether the intervention was started in a hospital or community.

The studies that had compared early with late-initiated KMC showed a reduction in neonatal mortality of 33%.

Low- and middle-income countries have the highest rates of premature births (gestational age of less than 37 weeks) and low birthweight (less than 2,500 grams). Premature births and low birthweight both are key causes of death and disability.

The World Health Organization recommends KMC as the standard of care among low birthweight infants after clinical stabilization. The American Academy of Pediatrics also promotes immediate KMC.
 

Relevance in the U.S.

Grace Chan, MD, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist and pediatrician with the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said though the practice is promoted by the WHO and AAP, recommendations to families vary widely by providers.

She said the health benefits for KMC are numerous. One of the biggest is that skin-to-skin contact can help transfer heat to newborns who may have trouble regulating their own temperature. That is especially important in cold climates in places where there may be insufficient indoor heat.

She said it’s well-known that preterm babies are at higher risk for apnea, and listening to a mother’s heartbeat may stimulate the child to breathe regularly.

Additionally with KMC, there’s an inherent benefit of a mother or caregiver being able to see any change in a newborn’s color immediately when the baby is held so closely, as opposed to a nurse watching several babies at a time in a neonatal intensive care unit.

This is evidence that starting KMC right away is important, because the risk of death for premature and low-weight newborns is highest in the first 24 hours of life, Dr. Chan noted.
 

Barriers of time

There are some barriers, she noted, in that mothers or other caregivers caring for several young children may not have the time to carry a child in a sling for 8 or more hours at a time.

The authors conclude that their findings have policy implications, particularly for low- and middle-income countries: “KMC should be provided to all low birth weight and preterm infants irrespective of the settings – both health facilities and at home,” they wrote.

The authors caution that, “very low birth weight, extremely preterm neonates, and severely unstable neonates were often excluded from studies. More evidence is needed before extrapolating the study results in these high-risk groups.”

The study authors and Dr. Chan report no relevant financial relationships.

SAN FRANCISCO – The patient at a Florida eating disorder clinic said she was eating plenty even though she acknowledged purging once a week. But her vitals told a different story: Her body mass index (BMI) was 12.2, down from 14.8 a couple of years before – a dangerously low value.

University of Florida

Determining capacity

In some cases of AN, psychiatrists must determine whether they have the capacity to make decisions about treatment, said Gabriel Jerkins, MD, a chief resident of psychiatry at the University of Florida. At issue is “the ability of the individual to comprehend the information being disclosed in regard to their condition, as well as the nature and potential risks and benefits of the proposed treatment alternatives. They include of course, no treatment at all.”

University of Florida

University of Florida

SAN FRANCISCO – The patient at a Florida eating disorder clinic said she was eating plenty even though she acknowledged purging once a week. But her vitals told a different story: Her body mass index (BMI) was 12.2, down from 14.8 a couple of years before – a dangerously low value.

University of Florida

Determining capacity

In some cases of AN, psychiatrists must determine whether they have the capacity to make decisions about treatment, said Gabriel Jerkins, MD, a chief resident of psychiatry at the University of Florida. At issue is “the ability of the individual to comprehend the information being disclosed in regard to their condition, as well as the nature and potential risks and benefits of the proposed treatment alternatives. They include of course, no treatment at all.”

University of Florida

University of Florida

SAN FRANCISCO – The patient at a Florida eating disorder clinic said she was eating plenty even though she acknowledged purging once a week. But her vitals told a different story: Her body mass index (BMI) was 12.2, down from 14.8 a couple of years before – a dangerously low value.

University of Florida

Determining capacity

In some cases of AN, psychiatrists must determine whether they have the capacity to make decisions about treatment, said Gabriel Jerkins, MD, a chief resident of psychiatry at the University of Florida. At issue is “the ability of the individual to comprehend the information being disclosed in regard to their condition, as well as the nature and potential risks and benefits of the proposed treatment alternatives. They include of course, no treatment at all.”

University of Florida

University of Florida

TOPLINE

Alcohol dependence, but not consumption, at age 18 years increases the risk for depression at age 24 years.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included 3,902 mostly White adolescents, about 58% female, born in England from April 1991 to December 1992, who were part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) that examined genetic and environmental determinants of health and development.
• Participants completed the self-report Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) between the ages of 16 and 23 years, a period when average alcohol use increases rapidly.
• The primary outcome was probability for depression at age 24 years, using the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (CIS-R), a self-administered computerized clinical assessment of common mental disorder symptoms during the past week.
• Researchers assessed frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption as well as alcohol dependence.
• Confounders included sex, housing type, maternal education and depressive symptoms, parents’ alcohol use, conduct problems at age 4 years, being bullied, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAYS

• After adjustments, alcohol dependence at age 18 years was associated with depression at age 24 years (unstandardized probit coefficient 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.25; P = .019)
• The relationship appeared to persist for alcohol dependence at each age of the growth curve (17-22 years).
• There was no evidence that frequency or quantity of alcohol consumption at age 18 was significantly associated with depression at age 24, suggesting these factors may not increase the risk for later depression unless there are also features of dependency.

IN PRACTICE

“Our findings suggest that preventing alcohol dependence during adolescence, or treating it early, could reduce the risk of depression,” which could have important public health implications, the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was carried out by researchers at the University of Bristol; University College London; Critical Thinking Unit, Public Health Directorate, NHS; University of Nottingham, all in the United Kingdom. It was published online in Lancet Psychiatry

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial attrition in the ALSPAC cohort from birth to age 24 years. The sample was recruited from one U.K. region and most participants were White. Measures of alcohol consumption and dependence excluded some features of abuse. And as this is an observational study, the possibility of residual confounding can’t be excluded.

DISCLOSURES

The investigators report no relevant disclosures. The study received support from the UK Medical Research Council and Alcohol Research UK.

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

TOPLINE

Alcohol dependence, but not consumption, at age 18 years increases the risk for depression at age 24 years.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included 3,902 mostly White adolescents, about 58% female, born in England from April 1991 to December 1992, who were part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) that examined genetic and environmental determinants of health and development.
• Participants completed the self-report Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) between the ages of 16 and 23 years, a period when average alcohol use increases rapidly.
• The primary outcome was probability for depression at age 24 years, using the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (CIS-R), a self-administered computerized clinical assessment of common mental disorder symptoms during the past week.
• Researchers assessed frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption as well as alcohol dependence.
• Confounders included sex, housing type, maternal education and depressive symptoms, parents’ alcohol use, conduct problems at age 4 years, being bullied, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAYS

• After adjustments, alcohol dependence at age 18 years was associated with depression at age 24 years (unstandardized probit coefficient 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.25; P = .019)
• The relationship appeared to persist for alcohol dependence at each age of the growth curve (17-22 years).
• There was no evidence that frequency or quantity of alcohol consumption at age 18 was significantly associated with depression at age 24, suggesting these factors may not increase the risk for later depression unless there are also features of dependency.

IN PRACTICE

“Our findings suggest that preventing alcohol dependence during adolescence, or treating it early, could reduce the risk of depression,” which could have important public health implications, the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was carried out by researchers at the University of Bristol; University College London; Critical Thinking Unit, Public Health Directorate, NHS; University of Nottingham, all in the United Kingdom. It was published online in Lancet Psychiatry

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial attrition in the ALSPAC cohort from birth to age 24 years. The sample was recruited from one U.K. region and most participants were White. Measures of alcohol consumption and dependence excluded some features of abuse. And as this is an observational study, the possibility of residual confounding can’t be excluded.

DISCLOSURES

The investigators report no relevant disclosures. The study received support from the UK Medical Research Council and Alcohol Research UK.

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

TOPLINE

Alcohol dependence, but not consumption, at age 18 years increases the risk for depression at age 24 years.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included 3,902 mostly White adolescents, about 58% female, born in England from April 1991 to December 1992, who were part of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) that examined genetic and environmental determinants of health and development.
• Participants completed the self-report Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) between the ages of 16 and 23 years, a period when average alcohol use increases rapidly.
• The primary outcome was probability for depression at age 24 years, using the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised (CIS-R), a self-administered computerized clinical assessment of common mental disorder symptoms during the past week.
• Researchers assessed frequency and quantity of alcohol consumption as well as alcohol dependence.
• Confounders included sex, housing type, maternal education and depressive symptoms, parents’ alcohol use, conduct problems at age 4 years, being bullied, and smoking status.

TAKEAWAYS

• After adjustments, alcohol dependence at age 18 years was associated with depression at age 24 years (unstandardized probit coefficient 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.25; P = .019)
• The relationship appeared to persist for alcohol dependence at each age of the growth curve (17-22 years).
• There was no evidence that frequency or quantity of alcohol consumption at age 18 was significantly associated with depression at age 24, suggesting these factors may not increase the risk for later depression unless there are also features of dependency.

IN PRACTICE

“Our findings suggest that preventing alcohol dependence during adolescence, or treating it early, could reduce the risk of depression,” which could have important public health implications, the researchers write.

STUDY DETAILS

The study was carried out by researchers at the University of Bristol; University College London; Critical Thinking Unit, Public Health Directorate, NHS; University of Nottingham, all in the United Kingdom. It was published online in Lancet Psychiatry

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial attrition in the ALSPAC cohort from birth to age 24 years. The sample was recruited from one U.K. region and most participants were White. Measures of alcohol consumption and dependence excluded some features of abuse. And as this is an observational study, the possibility of residual confounding can’t be excluded.

DISCLOSURES

The investigators report no relevant disclosures. The study received support from the UK Medical Research Council and Alcohol Research UK.

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

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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

Shortages of carboplatin and cisplatin have become widespread among major cancer centers, according to a survey released this week from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.

“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.

“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”

The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.

“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.

Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.

The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.

The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.

“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”

In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:

• “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
• “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
• “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”

Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”

Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.

The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.

The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”

Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – Frexalimab, a novel, second-generation anti-CD40L antibody, shows “strikingly positive” effects in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), significantly reducing disease activity.

“We should be very excited about these results, which are better than expected and fundamentally tackle autoimmunity,” said study investigator Gavin Giovannoni, MD, PhD, chair of neurology at the Blizard Institute of Barts, London, and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. “It will be interesting to see if this treatment reestablishes immune tolerance and induces long-term remission,” he said.

The late-breaking study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
 

Significant lesion reduction

With a variety of disease-modifying therapies available for MS, frexalimab would be unique as a novel second-generation monoclonal antibody designed to block the costimulatory CD40/CD40L cellular pathway. Importantly, the mechanism is believed to potentially modify T- and B-cell activation and innate immune cell function, for an effect of reducing inflammation without depleting B cells.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy and safety, Dr. Giovannoni and his colleagues conducted the phase 2, multicenter trial, in which 129 participants with relapsing MS were randomized to one of four groups – high-dose frexalimab (n = 52); low-dose frexalimab (n = 51); or placebo (n = 12 high-dose, n = 14 low-dose), for the 12-week placebo-controlled period, followed by an open-label extension period that is currently ongoing.

Among 125 participants who completed the study’s 12-week double-blind period, those receiving high-dose frexalimab had an 89% greater reduction in the number of new gadolinium-enhancing T1-lesions, compared with the pooled placebo group (P = .0004), meeting the study’s primary endpoint. After 24 weeks, as many as 96% of those in the high-dose frexalimab arm were free of gadolinium-enhanced T1 lesions.

The frexalimab low-dose group also had a lower, but significant, reduction in the number of new gadolinium-enhanced T1-lesions of 79% versus the pooled placebo group (P = .0021).

Both of the frexalimab groups also had reductions in enlarging T2-lesions and total gadolinium-enhanced T1-lesions.

In the high-dose group, data on 38 participants with open-label data from week 37 showed no new gadolinium-enhanced lesions.

In terms of safety, frexalimab was well tolerated over the 12-week study, with headache and COVID-19 reported among 4% or fewer participants. No serious adverse events were reported.

Looking ahead at safety, Dr. Giovannoni noted that “a known unknown is infections, but this is a problem with all therapies that work via immunosuppressive mechanisms, not only therapies targeting CD40L.” That said, “we didn’t see a big infection signal in the trial, which is reassuring. It also shows the immune system has built-in redundancy and many mechanisms to fight infections,” he added.

In his newsletter, Dr. Giovannoni characterized the study’s results as “strikingly positive,” adding that they “are the most exciting to emerge in MS in the last 12-24 months.”

Overall, “these are the first randomized controlled phase 2 data for a CD40L inhibitor in MS and indicate potential for further development of frexalimab as a high-efficacy therapy,” the investigators noted. “Frexalimab led to a pronounced reduction of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions by 3 months and was well-tolerated,” they added.
 

An intriguing mechanism

Commenting on the study, Salim Chahin, MD, an assistant professor of neurology in the John L. Trotter MS Center in the department of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, said that frexalimab represents an intriguing mechanistic approach to MS.

“In the world of MS and neuroimmunology, this is indeed a unique mechanism that has not been explored before,” Dr. Chahin said.

“Therapies targeting CD40 and CD40L are not new but were previously associated with unfavorable side effects, mainly thromboembolic events that halted their development,” he said, noting that the drug appears to avoid these side effects, providing good phase 2 efficacy data.

Dr. Chahin agreed that the phase 3 data will be watched closely for further safety and efficacy issues. “Indeed, it is difficult to interpret the occurrence of COVID-19 infections, given the timing of the phase 2 study, or their severity, but based on the mechanism of action, it is possible that this drug will be associated with a more favorable safety profile than some of the currently approved MS treatments,” Dr. Chahin said.

“But phase 3 trial data are much needed to clarify the immunosuppressive risk.”

The study received funding from Sanofi. Dr. Giovannoni’s disclosures include current or recent relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co, Merck KGaA/EMD, Moderna, Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Chahin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

AURORA, COLO. – Frexalimab, a novel, second-generation anti-CD40L antibody, shows “strikingly positive” effects in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), significantly reducing disease activity.

“We should be very excited about these results, which are better than expected and fundamentally tackle autoimmunity,” said study investigator Gavin Giovannoni, MD, PhD, chair of neurology at the Blizard Institute of Barts, London, and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. “It will be interesting to see if this treatment reestablishes immune tolerance and induces long-term remission,” he said.

The late-breaking study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
 

Significant lesion reduction

With a variety of disease-modifying therapies available for MS, frexalimab would be unique as a novel second-generation monoclonal antibody designed to block the costimulatory CD40/CD40L cellular pathway. Importantly, the mechanism is believed to potentially modify T- and B-cell activation and innate immune cell function, for an effect of reducing inflammation without depleting B cells.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy and safety, Dr. Giovannoni and his colleagues conducted the phase 2, multicenter trial, in which 129 participants with relapsing MS were randomized to one of four groups – high-dose frexalimab (n = 52); low-dose frexalimab (n = 51); or placebo (n = 12 high-dose, n = 14 low-dose), for the 12-week placebo-controlled period, followed by an open-label extension period that is currently ongoing.

Among 125 participants who completed the study’s 12-week double-blind period, those receiving high-dose frexalimab had an 89% greater reduction in the number of new gadolinium-enhancing T1-lesions, compared with the pooled placebo group (P = .0004), meeting the study’s primary endpoint. After 24 weeks, as many as 96% of those in the high-dose frexalimab arm were free of gadolinium-enhanced T1 lesions.

The frexalimab low-dose group also had a lower, but significant, reduction in the number of new gadolinium-enhanced T1-lesions of 79% versus the pooled placebo group (P = .0021).

Both of the frexalimab groups also had reductions in enlarging T2-lesions and total gadolinium-enhanced T1-lesions.

In the high-dose group, data on 38 participants with open-label data from week 37 showed no new gadolinium-enhanced lesions.

In terms of safety, frexalimab was well tolerated over the 12-week study, with headache and COVID-19 reported among 4% or fewer participants. No serious adverse events were reported.

Looking ahead at safety, Dr. Giovannoni noted that “a known unknown is infections, but this is a problem with all therapies that work via immunosuppressive mechanisms, not only therapies targeting CD40L.” That said, “we didn’t see a big infection signal in the trial, which is reassuring. It also shows the immune system has built-in redundancy and many mechanisms to fight infections,” he added.

In his newsletter, Dr. Giovannoni characterized the study’s results as “strikingly positive,” adding that they “are the most exciting to emerge in MS in the last 12-24 months.”

Overall, “these are the first randomized controlled phase 2 data for a CD40L inhibitor in MS and indicate potential for further development of frexalimab as a high-efficacy therapy,” the investigators noted. “Frexalimab led to a pronounced reduction of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions by 3 months and was well-tolerated,” they added.
 

An intriguing mechanism

Commenting on the study, Salim Chahin, MD, an assistant professor of neurology in the John L. Trotter MS Center in the department of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, said that frexalimab represents an intriguing mechanistic approach to MS.

“In the world of MS and neuroimmunology, this is indeed a unique mechanism that has not been explored before,” Dr. Chahin said.

“Therapies targeting CD40 and CD40L are not new but were previously associated with unfavorable side effects, mainly thromboembolic events that halted their development,” he said, noting that the drug appears to avoid these side effects, providing good phase 2 efficacy data.

Dr. Chahin agreed that the phase 3 data will be watched closely for further safety and efficacy issues. “Indeed, it is difficult to interpret the occurrence of COVID-19 infections, given the timing of the phase 2 study, or their severity, but based on the mechanism of action, it is possible that this drug will be associated with a more favorable safety profile than some of the currently approved MS treatments,” Dr. Chahin said.

“But phase 3 trial data are much needed to clarify the immunosuppressive risk.”

The study received funding from Sanofi. Dr. Giovannoni’s disclosures include current or recent relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co, Merck KGaA/EMD, Moderna, Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Chahin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

AURORA, COLO. – Frexalimab, a novel, second-generation anti-CD40L antibody, shows “strikingly positive” effects in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), significantly reducing disease activity.

“We should be very excited about these results, which are better than expected and fundamentally tackle autoimmunity,” said study investigator Gavin Giovannoni, MD, PhD, chair of neurology at the Blizard Institute of Barts, London, and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry. “It will be interesting to see if this treatment reestablishes immune tolerance and induces long-term remission,” he said.

The late-breaking study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.
 

Significant lesion reduction

With a variety of disease-modifying therapies available for MS, frexalimab would be unique as a novel second-generation monoclonal antibody designed to block the costimulatory CD40/CD40L cellular pathway. Importantly, the mechanism is believed to potentially modify T- and B-cell activation and innate immune cell function, for an effect of reducing inflammation without depleting B cells.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy and safety, Dr. Giovannoni and his colleagues conducted the phase 2, multicenter trial, in which 129 participants with relapsing MS were randomized to one of four groups – high-dose frexalimab (n = 52); low-dose frexalimab (n = 51); or placebo (n = 12 high-dose, n = 14 low-dose), for the 12-week placebo-controlled period, followed by an open-label extension period that is currently ongoing.

Among 125 participants who completed the study’s 12-week double-blind period, those receiving high-dose frexalimab had an 89% greater reduction in the number of new gadolinium-enhancing T1-lesions, compared with the pooled placebo group (P = .0004), meeting the study’s primary endpoint. After 24 weeks, as many as 96% of those in the high-dose frexalimab arm were free of gadolinium-enhanced T1 lesions.

The frexalimab low-dose group also had a lower, but significant, reduction in the number of new gadolinium-enhanced T1-lesions of 79% versus the pooled placebo group (P = .0021).

Both of the frexalimab groups also had reductions in enlarging T2-lesions and total gadolinium-enhanced T1-lesions.

In the high-dose group, data on 38 participants with open-label data from week 37 showed no new gadolinium-enhanced lesions.

In terms of safety, frexalimab was well tolerated over the 12-week study, with headache and COVID-19 reported among 4% or fewer participants. No serious adverse events were reported.

Looking ahead at safety, Dr. Giovannoni noted that “a known unknown is infections, but this is a problem with all therapies that work via immunosuppressive mechanisms, not only therapies targeting CD40L.” That said, “we didn’t see a big infection signal in the trial, which is reassuring. It also shows the immune system has built-in redundancy and many mechanisms to fight infections,” he added.

In his newsletter, Dr. Giovannoni characterized the study’s results as “strikingly positive,” adding that they “are the most exciting to emerge in MS in the last 12-24 months.”

Overall, “these are the first randomized controlled phase 2 data for a CD40L inhibitor in MS and indicate potential for further development of frexalimab as a high-efficacy therapy,” the investigators noted. “Frexalimab led to a pronounced reduction of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions by 3 months and was well-tolerated,” they added.
 

An intriguing mechanism

Commenting on the study, Salim Chahin, MD, an assistant professor of neurology in the John L. Trotter MS Center in the department of neurology at Washington University, St. Louis, said that frexalimab represents an intriguing mechanistic approach to MS.

“In the world of MS and neuroimmunology, this is indeed a unique mechanism that has not been explored before,” Dr. Chahin said.

“Therapies targeting CD40 and CD40L are not new but were previously associated with unfavorable side effects, mainly thromboembolic events that halted their development,” he said, noting that the drug appears to avoid these side effects, providing good phase 2 efficacy data.

Dr. Chahin agreed that the phase 3 data will be watched closely for further safety and efficacy issues. “Indeed, it is difficult to interpret the occurrence of COVID-19 infections, given the timing of the phase 2 study, or their severity, but based on the mechanism of action, it is possible that this drug will be associated with a more favorable safety profile than some of the currently approved MS treatments,” Dr. Chahin said.

“But phase 3 trial data are much needed to clarify the immunosuppressive risk.”

The study received funding from Sanofi. Dr. Giovannoni’s disclosures include current or recent relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Atara Bio, Biogen, BMS-Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen/J&J, Japanese Tobacco, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LifNano, Merck & Co, Merck KGaA/EMD, Moderna, Serono, Moderna, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Chahin reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Springer Nature will retract an article that reported results of a survey of parents who thought their children’s gender dysphoria resulted from social contagion. The move is “due to concerns about lack of informed consent,” according to tweets by one of the paper’s authors. 

The article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was published in March in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. It has not been cited in the scientific literature, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, but Altmetric, which tracks the online attention papers receive, ranks the article in the top 1% of all articles of a similar age. 

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is, the article stated, a “controversial theory” that “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations cause some adolescents (especially female adolescents) to attribute their social problems, feelings, and mental health issues to gender dysphoria,” and that “youth with ROGD falsely believe that they are transgender,” in part due to social influences. 

Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and the paper’s corresponding author, tweeted:

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

Springer Nature will retract an article that reported results of a survey of parents who thought their children’s gender dysphoria resulted from social contagion. The move is “due to concerns about lack of informed consent,” according to tweets by one of the paper’s authors. 

The article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was published in March in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. It has not been cited in the scientific literature, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, but Altmetric, which tracks the online attention papers receive, ranks the article in the top 1% of all articles of a similar age. 

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is, the article stated, a “controversial theory” that “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations cause some adolescents (especially female adolescents) to attribute their social problems, feelings, and mental health issues to gender dysphoria,” and that “youth with ROGD falsely believe that they are transgender,” in part due to social influences. 

Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and the paper’s corresponding author, tweeted:

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

Springer Nature will retract an article that reported results of a survey of parents who thought their children’s gender dysphoria resulted from social contagion. The move is “due to concerns about lack of informed consent,” according to tweets by one of the paper’s authors. 

The article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was published in March in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. It has not been cited in the scientific literature, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, but Altmetric, which tracks the online attention papers receive, ranks the article in the top 1% of all articles of a similar age. 

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is, the article stated, a “controversial theory” that “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations cause some adolescents (especially female adolescents) to attribute their social problems, feelings, and mental health issues to gender dysphoria,” and that “youth with ROGD falsely believe that they are transgender,” in part due to social influences. 

Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., and the paper’s corresponding author, tweeted:

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

Patients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD) face an increased risk of respiratory muscle weakness, which can contribute to various health problems. These include chronic respiratory failure, sleep-related breathing disorders, sialorrhea, and reduced cough effectiveness. In collaboration with AASM, AARC, and ATS, CHEST has developed guidelines to help clinicians manage patients with NMD. Through a systematic review of 128 studies related to this topic, the expert panel developed 15 graded recommendations, a good practice statement, and a consensus-based statement using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology.

A few of the key recommendations are as follows:

1. Addressing the use and timing of pulmonary function tests (PFT), the panel suggests measuring vital capacity (FVC or SVC), MIP/MEP, SNIP, or PCF in patients with NMD every 6 months.

2. For the detection of respiratory failure and sleep-related breathing disorders in symptomatic patients with NMD who have normal PFT and overnight oximetry (ONO), the panel suggested that clinicians consider polysomnography (PSG) to assess whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial. Adult patients do not have to have PSG to manage NMD if the PFT or ONO criteria support using NIV.

3. The panel recommends the use of NIV for the treatment of respiratory failure. To guide the initiation of NIV, clinicians can use any fall in FVC to < 80% of predicted with symptoms or FVC to < 50% of predicted without symptoms or SNIP/MIP to < –40 cm H₂O or hypercapnia. The panel recommended individualizing treatment.

4. The panel suggested mouth piece ventilation (MPV) for daytime ventilatory support in patients with preserved bulbar function. Its desirable effects include delaying or avoiding tracheostomy and improving speech, cough effectiveness, and coordination of breathing and swallowing.

5. Invasive home mechanical ventilation (MV) by tracheostomy was identified as an acceptable option for patients with progressive respiratory failure, particularly those who were unable to clear secretions. Because of the high costs and caregiver burden, the guideline highlights the need to consider patient preferences, tolerability, the ability to maintain mouthpiece ventilation, and the availability of resources when choosing an appropriate treatment option.

6. The panel suggested practicing clinicians address the management of sialorrhea and airway clearance techniques in patients with NMD, as they face the risk of aspiration and pneumonia. For sialorrhea, the panel suggests starting with a trial of anticholinergic agents, as they are inexpensive and readily available. The panel also provided advice on botulinum toxin therapy and radiation therapy, which have limited data and should be reserved for experienced centers.

7. The panel reviewed data on airway clearance techniques, including glossopharyngeal breathing (GPB), mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E), also commonly known as cough-assist device, manually assisted cough, lung volume recruitment (LVR) by air stacking, and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). The panel suggested using airway clearance techniques based on local resources, expertise, and shared decision-making with patients.

The panel stressed the importance of respect for patient preferences, treatment goals, and quality of life considerations. The panel emphasized the need to modernize and improve access to ventilatory support for patients with NMD and the role of shared decision-making in improving quality of life and long-term outcomes. The panel also suggests that randomized controlled trials in patients with NMD would help establish a higher grade of evidence.
 

Dr. Hubel and Dr. Khan are from the Division of Pulmonary Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

Reference

Khan A et al. Respiratory management of patients with neuromuscular weakness: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline and Expert Panel Report [published online ahead of print, 2023 Mar 13]. Chest. 2023;S0012-3692(23)00353-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.03.011.

Patients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD) face an increased risk of respiratory muscle weakness, which can contribute to various health problems. These include chronic respiratory failure, sleep-related breathing disorders, sialorrhea, and reduced cough effectiveness. In collaboration with AASM, AARC, and ATS, CHEST has developed guidelines to help clinicians manage patients with NMD. Through a systematic review of 128 studies related to this topic, the expert panel developed 15 graded recommendations, a good practice statement, and a consensus-based statement using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology.

A few of the key recommendations are as follows:

1. Addressing the use and timing of pulmonary function tests (PFT), the panel suggests measuring vital capacity (FVC or SVC), MIP/MEP, SNIP, or PCF in patients with NMD every 6 months.

2. For the detection of respiratory failure and sleep-related breathing disorders in symptomatic patients with NMD who have normal PFT and overnight oximetry (ONO), the panel suggested that clinicians consider polysomnography (PSG) to assess whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial. Adult patients do not have to have PSG to manage NMD if the PFT or ONO criteria support using NIV.

3. The panel recommends the use of NIV for the treatment of respiratory failure. To guide the initiation of NIV, clinicians can use any fall in FVC to < 80% of predicted with symptoms or FVC to < 50% of predicted without symptoms or SNIP/MIP to < –40 cm H₂O or hypercapnia. The panel recommended individualizing treatment.

4. The panel suggested mouth piece ventilation (MPV) for daytime ventilatory support in patients with preserved bulbar function. Its desirable effects include delaying or avoiding tracheostomy and improving speech, cough effectiveness, and coordination of breathing and swallowing.

5. Invasive home mechanical ventilation (MV) by tracheostomy was identified as an acceptable option for patients with progressive respiratory failure, particularly those who were unable to clear secretions. Because of the high costs and caregiver burden, the guideline highlights the need to consider patient preferences, tolerability, the ability to maintain mouthpiece ventilation, and the availability of resources when choosing an appropriate treatment option.

6. The panel suggested practicing clinicians address the management of sialorrhea and airway clearance techniques in patients with NMD, as they face the risk of aspiration and pneumonia. For sialorrhea, the panel suggests starting with a trial of anticholinergic agents, as they are inexpensive and readily available. The panel also provided advice on botulinum toxin therapy and radiation therapy, which have limited data and should be reserved for experienced centers.

7. The panel reviewed data on airway clearance techniques, including glossopharyngeal breathing (GPB), mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E), also commonly known as cough-assist device, manually assisted cough, lung volume recruitment (LVR) by air stacking, and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). The panel suggested using airway clearance techniques based on local resources, expertise, and shared decision-making with patients.

The panel stressed the importance of respect for patient preferences, treatment goals, and quality of life considerations. The panel emphasized the need to modernize and improve access to ventilatory support for patients with NMD and the role of shared decision-making in improving quality of life and long-term outcomes. The panel also suggests that randomized controlled trials in patients with NMD would help establish a higher grade of evidence.
 

Dr. Hubel and Dr. Khan are from the Division of Pulmonary Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

Reference

Khan A et al. Respiratory management of patients with neuromuscular weakness: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline and Expert Panel Report [published online ahead of print, 2023 Mar 13]. Chest. 2023;S0012-3692(23)00353-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.03.011.

Patients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD) face an increased risk of respiratory muscle weakness, which can contribute to various health problems. These include chronic respiratory failure, sleep-related breathing disorders, sialorrhea, and reduced cough effectiveness. In collaboration with AASM, AARC, and ATS, CHEST has developed guidelines to help clinicians manage patients with NMD. Through a systematic review of 128 studies related to this topic, the expert panel developed 15 graded recommendations, a good practice statement, and a consensus-based statement using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) format using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology.

A few of the key recommendations are as follows:

1. Addressing the use and timing of pulmonary function tests (PFT), the panel suggests measuring vital capacity (FVC or SVC), MIP/MEP, SNIP, or PCF in patients with NMD every 6 months.

2. For the detection of respiratory failure and sleep-related breathing disorders in symptomatic patients with NMD who have normal PFT and overnight oximetry (ONO), the panel suggested that clinicians consider polysomnography (PSG) to assess whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial. Adult patients do not have to have PSG to manage NMD if the PFT or ONO criteria support using NIV.

3. The panel recommends the use of NIV for the treatment of respiratory failure. To guide the initiation of NIV, clinicians can use any fall in FVC to < 80% of predicted with symptoms or FVC to < 50% of predicted without symptoms or SNIP/MIP to < –40 cm H₂O or hypercapnia. The panel recommended individualizing treatment.

4. The panel suggested mouth piece ventilation (MPV) for daytime ventilatory support in patients with preserved bulbar function. Its desirable effects include delaying or avoiding tracheostomy and improving speech, cough effectiveness, and coordination of breathing and swallowing.

5. Invasive home mechanical ventilation (MV) by tracheostomy was identified as an acceptable option for patients with progressive respiratory failure, particularly those who were unable to clear secretions. Because of the high costs and caregiver burden, the guideline highlights the need to consider patient preferences, tolerability, the ability to maintain mouthpiece ventilation, and the availability of resources when choosing an appropriate treatment option.

6. The panel suggested practicing clinicians address the management of sialorrhea and airway clearance techniques in patients with NMD, as they face the risk of aspiration and pneumonia. For sialorrhea, the panel suggests starting with a trial of anticholinergic agents, as they are inexpensive and readily available. The panel also provided advice on botulinum toxin therapy and radiation therapy, which have limited data and should be reserved for experienced centers.

7. The panel reviewed data on airway clearance techniques, including glossopharyngeal breathing (GPB), mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E), also commonly known as cough-assist device, manually assisted cough, lung volume recruitment (LVR) by air stacking, and high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO). The panel suggested using airway clearance techniques based on local resources, expertise, and shared decision-making with patients.

The panel stressed the importance of respect for patient preferences, treatment goals, and quality of life considerations. The panel emphasized the need to modernize and improve access to ventilatory support for patients with NMD and the role of shared decision-making in improving quality of life and long-term outcomes. The panel also suggests that randomized controlled trials in patients with NMD would help establish a higher grade of evidence.
 

Dr. Hubel and Dr. Khan are from the Division of Pulmonary Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

Reference

Khan A et al. Respiratory management of patients with neuromuscular weakness: An American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline and Expert Panel Report [published online ahead of print, 2023 Mar 13]. Chest. 2023;S0012-3692(23)00353-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.03.011.